straightUp Loc: California

That seems reasonable to me, though rather than make the assumption that we aren't supposed to know, I would just say that we don't.

straightUp Loc: California

Actually, it's not that hard. It's the same basic idea behind the big bang theory that there has always been matter and the bang is simply a conversion of state in terms we can actually replicate. This get's back to the power of imagination I was saying scientists have that religious people seem to lack.

The issue I have is that while scientists explore theories about what we don't know, people like you insist that you DO know, in elaborate detail according to some old stories that were passed on from ancient people who also though the sun revolved around the earth.

So you're welcome to believe the stories if you want, but to insult people for not going along takes foolish arrogance to a whole new level.

straightUp Loc: California

Speak for yourself... I don't have a problem imagining it nor suggesting it's possibility. What I take issue with are people who get so militant when people so much as question it.

Rose42

You do whether you realize it or not. Its man's nature to rebel against God. Everyone does it.

straightUp Loc: California

It's been a long time since I've read the Bible my friend so I probably forgot the "light" you are referring to. So let me just ask - is it a logical explanation that we can verify through some experiment, in which case I will dedicate the time to re-read it, or is it just another story about the creation of the universe, in which case I won't be so compelled?

Please bear in mind that I don't think something is true just because it's in the Bible. Human history has literally spun thousands of elaborate stories about the origin of the universe. Choosing to believe the story according to John is no more valid that choosing to believe the story that Ra, the sun god, rose from a lotus flower and gave light to the universe, or that Tepeu the maker and Gucumatz the feathered spirit created the world with their thoughts, just to cite the Egyptian and Mayan stories of creation.

straightUp Loc: California

Well, that's a nice way of collecting all the disputes and non-believers into a one-size fits all validation of God, but I can do the exact same thing and say it's man's nature to pretend to know things that he doesn't.

Cuda2020

This is interesting, I may struggle to put this into words, but where you say the religious lacks imagination is not exactly accurate. IMO I believe they have the imagination, but it is kept under the constraints of their religion. Conversely, their faith allows them to think beyond our physical world with a realization that there is more than a three-dimensional world. Something beyond our five senses.

What's great about scientists is they live without borders in the quest of the search. We are finally reaching a point where scientists, technology and the open-mindedness of not the religious but rather spiritual seekers, who are all coming together, personally I think that's a great thing, something very positive for all of us.

We are learning more about the different existence of energies and the vibrational planes they exist on, and how they can be tapped into. This is the stuff Einstein had been exploring, one of his quotes, from my recollection, was..."it's not about matter, it's about energy."
It never is destroyed, it goes on... just as one can think the soul does, if one happens to believe in the soul.

Rose42

And that's true as well.

Tug484

I think there are lot of things we aren't supposed to know.
When I was really young, at night I'd lie in bed and wonder where did God come from?
It's not something we can figure out.
I'd think if it was a void, how could he be there?
Your mind can go on and on with questions.
No answers though.

bylm1-Bernie

If what you are looking for is empirical evidence of how the Universe was created and by whom then I think we are working at cross purposes in even having a discussion. I don't think I have to preach to you about what faith is or that science, to this point, has not solved that problem either. We all have to put our faith in something and you obviously choose to put your faith in something other than the Bible. Fine! I'm not going to give you a hard time for believing what you believe even though it hasn't gotten us any closer to the question at hand than what the Bible has. The basic question has been around for a long time and the Christian's answer is pretty much the same as it was eons ago. Science has progressed exponentially and yet the question remains unanswered. Maybe someday we will know the answer, in detail, but I doubt if we will in this lifetime. Sometimes science can become very insistent that what it has revealed is right. And sometimes it has been proven wrong. I guess we will just have to wait for a brighter revelation, won't we.

JohnCorrespondent

Thank you.

JohnCorrespondent

Thank you.

Regarding the abstract god, representing the highest good or most important thing(s): This can be an abstract concept (like a placeholder in a discussion) without actually saying what the highest good or most important thing(s) is.

And then when we make our guesses, about what the highest good or most important thing(s) is, we are not necessarily trying to force that on anyone else.

There are a lot of religious people who claim to know about God in rather more detail than I can claim to know. And I get tired of their presumptuousness. Regarding them, I think: "You think God talks to you more than he talks to me." That said, there are a lot of fine religious people, anyway.

JohnCorrespondent

Where did the transcendent cause come from?

How is it possible these could come from _something_ (such as a "creator" or a "transcendent cause"), about which you can't say where _it_ came from? You are back to square one: a something, and you can't say where it came from.

More plausibly, both those gifts _and_ any such "creator" evolved from simpler things which evolved from yet simpler things, and so on until you get to the theoretically simplest thing of all, whatever that is.

I suppose the theoretically simplest thing of all is the nearest thing to absolute nothingness that there is.

There's no reason we have to suppose that "absolute nothingness" is even possible or meaningful.

The theory (mentioned in my earlier post) in which what appears to us as empty space is full of random negative and positive things that usually cancel each other out so fast that normally we never notice them is probably the best guess we'll get about where everything evolved from. (In this theory, there is _no_such_thing_ as absolute nothingness.)

We could instead say that there has _always_ been the same kinds of matter and energy we have today. But then somebody is going to ask where the matter and energy came from.

Sure there is. Maybe we don't know exactly what it is yet, but we can already posit some guesses about it: For example: "Good" and "love" are defined as that which leads to growth, and "evil" and "hatred" are defined as that which leads to stagnation. Things endure or reproduce, or instead die off, according to simple laws of evolution, such as: some things last longer than others. It is based on random particles that either formed coherent atoms or molecules or didn't, as they were randomly wandering or bouncing around; then some of those molecules eventually joined together to form bigger molecules and, eventually, single-cell life. And so on.

I am one of the objects that evolved (along with my species and one of the cultures that _it_ evolved). I love a few other people and care about them; moreover, I try to be a good citizen and ethical person. All this is part of our survival mechanisms but it's also "good" in other senses of the word. It happens whether we have religious people preaching at us or not; and it happens whether there is a god or not. When you try to introduce god or God into the discussion (as an earlier cause) you are not explaining anything, but instead you are just adding something less explicable and less understandable than what was there before.

moldyoldy

Human origins
Theories throughout history.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/9/22/1886976/-Human-Origins-Scientific-Racism-in-the-Nineteenth-Century?detail=emaildkcc

JohnCorrespondent

This reminds me of what I wanted to say about UFO's. Most UFO's are most likely atmospheric disturbances, hallucinations, dreams, or astronomical things like meteorites, or even ball lightning! The other UFO's are most likely manmade and belong to secret parts of governments (ours or other country's). Some of them could even be privately made by billionaires.

It's also possible that there's some higher intelligence on Earth or nearby, which we aren't aware of. Some insects might not be aware of _us_. So, _we_ might not be aware of whatever's above us or smarter than us.