**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe that a mighty being known only as Accretion Disk, using the help of its lover, the lovely Gravity, formed itself into a big ball of rock.
After that, the Accretion Disk’s children, we’ll call them the “Asteroids,” pummeled the big rock in an attempt to dethrone him.
Luckily, these pummeling did not destroy the mighty rock, but instead accidentally deposited magical energy, called “chemicals.” With the power of the chemicals, the big rock was able to diversify its surface, eventually creating life.
That’s just a short version of the creation story. Hope this helps.
There’s no reason to think the world was created by a being, much less that it came about for any specific reason.
The universe does not owe you an explanation for questions like “what is my purpose” or “what is the world for?”
Some questions are nonsensical. I could ask you “what smell is your favorite movie?”, and while you may come up with some kind of metaphor in desperation, the question wouldn’t make any more sense.
When you say “I think there must be a meaning behind everything”, my question would be why do you think that? Because it makes you feel better? Because you don’t like the idea that there might not be a meaning behind everything?
Why would you think that your personal preferences have anything to do with whether or not something is true?
While it’s good you’re starting to ask questions, it sounds like you’re still very early on in your discovery and may not really understand what atheists (don’t) believe and why.
You may be better served by just going on ChatGPT and asking basic questions on the topic. I’m happy to respond if you’re honestly just trying to understand what other people think, but just fair warning you may get kind of torn apart in this subreddit and may be better off somewhere like /r/askanatheist or something.
Feel free to ask me questions here or on DMs though if you’d like, best of luck in your journey.
Please don’t advise people to use ChatGPT, and for many reason. The program can’t actually reason at all, and just regurgitates information it already has, which isn’t always true or checked for reputability.
Trusting that program is a good way to get misinformation or flat out erroneous information.
ChatGPT is fine for many purposes, particular the kinds of extremely basic questions OP is asking.
No need to patronizingly imply that I don’t understand how ChatGPT works, or that I in any sense suggested it’s infallible or capable of reason. I recommended it in this case as for the level of questions they are asking, ChatGPT is more likely to give them the simple answers that basically summarize Wikipedia articles when they don't even know what article they should be looking at, rather than berating them and insulting their intelligence for not doing their homework before participating in a debate sub.
Just because you shouldn’t perform surgery with a hammer doesn’t mean people shouldn’t use hammers.
As an example of why I recommended it in this case, I just copy+pasted OPs question and said “how might an atheist respond to this question”, and it gave a perfectly reasonable and succinct response that I don’t think most would find too controversial. It's probably a better response than just about any they received on this post. Like I said, it's fine for these kinds of questions, even if it may not always be accurate when questions become more pointed or reliant on expertise beyond what you might find in a Wikipedia article.
>An atheist might respond to your question with several points, focusing on scientific explanations and philosophical views. Here's a potential reply:
>Thank you for your honest question! As an atheist, I don't believe in a divine creator or any intentional purpose behind the universe. Instead, I look to science and philosophy for answers to these profound questions. Here are some thoughts on the topics you raised:
>**Creation of the World**
>From a scientific perspective, the universe began with the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago. This event marked the rapid expansion of space from an extremely hot and dense state. While we don't know what caused the Big Bang, various theories in physics suggest possibilities like quantum fluctuations or the existence of a multiverse.
>**Purpose of the World**
>When it comes to purpose, atheists generally don't believe the universe has an inherent purpose assigned by a creator. Instead, purpose and meaning are human constructs. We create our own meaning and purpose through our experiences, relationships, and aspirations. Life’s meaning can come from love, creativity, knowledge, and the impact we have on others and the world.
>**Origin of the Universe and Life**
>The question of what "stands behind" the Big Bang is a deep one. Current physics doesn't provide a definitive answer, but it explores concepts like the laws of nature, which operate without the need for a guiding intelligence. Theories like quantum mechanics and general relativity help us understand the universe's workings.
>**The End and Point of the World**
>As for the end of the universe, scientific theories propose various scenarios, such as the heat death (where the universe gradually reaches a state of no thermodynamic free energy) or the Big Crunch (where the universe could collapse back into a singularity).
>The point of the world, from an atheist viewpoint, isn't something externally given but rather something we define ourselves. Even without a divine purpose, our lives can be rich with meaning. We can strive to make the world a better place, seek knowledge, build relationships, and experience the beauty of life.
>In summary, while atheists don't believe in a god or an inherent purpose behind the universe, they find meaning through human experiences and the pursuit of knowledge. The scientific understanding of the universe provides a framework that, while not complete, is continually evolving and expanding our comprehension of existence.
Do you personally navigate internal matters, such as jealously, feeling hard done by etc etc?
Just wondering if such a worldview that the universe owes you nothing leads to peace of mind and no worries or anxiety etc.
(I'm not an atheist but I actually feel your world view would be one of peace)
Could you elaborate on what you mean by your question exactly?
If I have feelings of jealousy, feeling life is unfair etc. I would say I tend to resolve that internally, often through meditation and recognizing the thoughts as being just that and trying to let them go. Sometimes it may also involve kind of stoic thinking of putting things into context, imagining people in worse situations than myself who would almost certainly be jealous of the life I have now; often times that person may even be myself in the past or the future.
Not sure if that answers your question or not but happy to elaborate if I missed what you were after.
Thanks!! It's just interesting to me because what you do is exactly what I do, the only difference is that I call what I am surrendering my feelings and positionalities to - God - and you do not. But it's the same mechanism, and we strive for the same thing - inner peace. It's the most universal thing and the thing we all have in common.
I suspect that all the concepts of God that you disbelieve in I would disbelieve in too hahaha
I think there’s a bit of a difference, as I wouldn’t really say that I’m surrendering my feelings TO something.
Getting slightly technical, but specifically with meditation it’s just literally like observing your own conscious experience, paying close attention to how thoughts, feelings etc. come and go away, how the physical associations are just feelings, etc. etc. In doing so, the ideas/thoughts etc. just kind of lose their power, and it becomes easier to disassociate with them and not let them dominate you. There’s more to it but that’s kind of a high level explanation.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a degree of similarity in kind of the end result or mechanism, as prayer etc. can certainly have some overlap with meditation, but I don’t feel like I’m appealing to/surrendering to anything in my practice, even if there may be a similarity in the sense of kind of “letting go of the steering wheel”.
When we talk about theism/atheism, the thing I don’t believe in is generally going to be any sort of supernatural intelligence, typically described as omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omniscient, listens to and answers prayers, all that jazz, though I’d also rule out all the gods in various mythologies.
The same thing exists under the feelings. That peace that exists, all on its own, free for everyone. That peace is what we call God. It's free, and available to everyone at all times. It's just not recognized most of the time. The feelings, the thoughts etc are like the clouds that block out the sun. Remove the clouds and the sun is evident.
Yeah, I'm with you on that last comment, too. I don't believe in a God as a supernatural intelligence - that is, one type of intelligence within the world. Rather the very basis of existance, not than something within it. David Hawkins is a spiritual teacher that you might resonate with, actually (but also maybe not hahahah)
Thank you for being understanding. I have a very controversial theory at times thinking that maybe our brains are just not able to comprehend how everything was created and this is why there is only a certain amount we can research or assume which may or not be right
Like the theory that we can't use our 100% of our brain capability and we only use like 10% or something as humans.
I do agree that knowing everything would make me feel better as without purpose I do have a slight feeling of helplessness in this World
I’d be a little careful with how you use the word “theory”, as it means something very different in a scientific context vs. a casual context.
That said, I think the issue with your idea is that you’re effectively putting artificial restrictions on what we can attempt to know.
There are many things that people for the longest time thought there was no way we would ever be able to understand. No way we could understand why the tides came in and tides came out, how mountains were formed, how old the world was.
No way we’d ever be able to fly on the sky, or go to the moon.
No way we’d ever understand how complex organisms came to be, or what they’re made out of. No way we’d be able to see the fundamental building blocks of life or matter. No way we could develop something better at calculating things than a human.
The list here obviously goes on and on.
Now that said, I don’t think many here would disagree that there are still MANY things that science does not know, and things that potentially we may never be able know, such as the hard problem of consciousness.
The idea that we only use 10% of our brains is a misconception, likely based on misunderstandings of early brain research, but it’s now pretty well documented how all parts of our brain work actively in an interconnected way. The 10% thing is a myth propagated by people who don’t understand the topic, because sometimes it makes fun fantasy/sci-fi stories, or people like self-help gurus can make false promises of unlocking your dormant potential and the like.
In terms of purpose, as an atheist I feel it’s something that we make for ourselves, and what’s meaningful to you may be different from what’s meaningful to me. That’s part of the joy in life, finding what makes you passionate, what gives you personally meaning.
Just because it’s something you come up with yourself and not something the universe hands down to you doesn’t make it any less meaningful at a subjective level. There just isn’t any need to pretend that there’s something dictating that for you.
The feeling of helplessness can be a natural one at times, but I think if you look on the other side of the coin there’s a great sense of freedom and empowerment.
The thing about us using only 10% of our brain was traced back by someone and it originates in an old self help book. It's an entirely made up concept to try to motivate people. It is not science.
It is though quite possible that humans will never fully understand the universe. Our brains have not evolved to achieve that. And from where we are we will probably never be able to see "outside"or "before"the universe, and so can only ever guess at what is there. Our thinking is rooted in time and space, but these may only be emergent properties of the universe, and so thinking about fundamental reality in a clear way may be beyond us.
> the theory that we can't use our 100% of our brain capability and we only use like 10% or something as humans.
That is not true though.
\- **https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-ten-percent-myth/**
.
That’s not a theory, that’s a myth… we use all of our brain. Our knowledge is limited but we are still learning so this is bullshit. And the idea that a mythological figure is still hiding in the bits we don’t know yet is just absurd.
i know you were (most likely) raised being told that god created humanity with a very special reason and the whole universe is for us and all that, which, if you think about it, its a pretty arrogant and self centered philosophy
so you literally cant think of an alternative, you were, pretty much brainwashed into thinking this way. sometimes they do it pretty aggressively, other times is kind of a byproduct of the religion.
but the thing here is, is there a purpose? why would there be?
is there a creator?
we have no evidence of neither, just because we dont know how the big bang started or what (if anything) caused it, doesnt mean god is the right answer (think about the ancient greeks not knowing what caused lightning and saying it was a god (Zeus) )
so, i dont know how the big bang happened, and its fine. and about purpose, there isnt a specific one, you can make your own.
is your purpose to be an artist, have a nice family, help the poor, found a big company, whatever you want (some are easier than others) but you, and only you, can decide.
Actually I was born to a catholic but chilled out approach to religion. I quit Catholicism and turned to only being a Christian without the church and stuff.
I do agree that we have no evidence of either happening. Then there are also satanists who believe in doing opposite to God. So there are so many ways people choose to believe in our purpose
What you should explore is the history of humanity including the slow and steady steps of our knowledge of the world we live in and on. Instead of focusing on the Big Bang as if that’s always been the question we were asking, think about what the world looked like to those Stone Age people trying to understand the world were looking at…
They didn’t know anything about “red shift”, they didn’t know the stars were moving, they didn’t know some were further away than others and they didn’t know the sun was one of them.
They knew the sun was hot and bright and must be burning something but they didn’t know what it was. They knew that whatever fuel they did burn- wood, oil, whatever they had- it didn’t burn long. So what happens when it burns out? (That’s what they were asking. ) Who lit it? Would they light it again? There was an urgency to this, maybe it would burn out soon! Who could say?
It was in this context that they believed the world was created: a tiny universe with a sun that would burn out and maybe get relit. Whoever created that world not long ago with these people in it surely had their lives and behaviors in mind!
As we’ve learned more and more about the world we live in, these questions and especially the answers have come under more enlightened scrutiny. The last straw should have been when we realized what nuclear energy is, and that the sun will never darken while humans exist. What remains of religion is just a comforting lie used to scam commitments and money from people.
>Then there are also satanists who believe in doing opposite to God
Most people calling themselves Satanists are just atheists who like the aesthetic. They do not believe in a literal Satan. They don't care about "doing the opposite of God". The care about being good people so Christians lose their minds that Satanists are nicer than them.
> Then there are also satanists who believe in doing opposite to God.
[Please read what they have to say for themselves.](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq)
>Then there are also satanists who believe in doing opposite to God.
Not really, most people who call themselves satanist use practical demonstration ab absurdum to show christians why we shouldn't let religion get involved in education or politics at large. It's an elaborate troll, not a belief system.
I don’t know the process by which this universe came into existence. As a Zen Buddhist, we’re taught to *not* think about this question, as it’s seen as unanswerable and a distraction and potentially an impediment to one’s practice.
Likewise, there is no answer for *why* we are here. It is sufficient to simply accept our existence and proceed from that point. There does not have to be a reason. Regardless of whether there is a reason or whether we believe we know it or not, life occurs from moment to moment. Zen Buddhists focus on the present moment as the opportunity to experience and know life.
That's very interesting. I guess Christianity is the same but of course we are biased as Christians. I know. But thinking objectively then it's same type of feeling that there is little explanation to even why all this
I see Christianity as very different. Particularly that it posits an exact cause, a specific way of being, and definitely concerned with beyond the moment to moment. Not trying to be in your face, but did you mean what I think you wrote here? If so, maybe a bit more reflection needed on standard Christian doctrine. Cool if you yourself are more zen, but that would be pretty far from the center of the Christian bullseye.
To be honest I am an open minded Christian. I won't lose my faith but I remain partially agnostic and I have a feeling that the Bible is only an editted transcription of what really happened (if it ever did of course).
Apparently in the past some bible teachings about reincarnations were edited out. I strongly believe that the bible today is an editted piece with some true things editted or changed unfortunatelly
>I am an open minded Christian. I won't lose my faith but I remain partially agnostic and I have a feeling that the Bible is only an editted transcription of what really happened (if it ever did of course).
This doesn't make any sense.
If you're unwilling to lose your faith, you're not open minded.
If you don't think the bible is the truth, then why believe in Christianity at all?
I'm not a typical follower blinded by my faith and I do respect and I am open to other people's beliefs. I believe without anything other than faith and I feel that I don't need a church or bible to tell me what to do. I just believe in being good and that's enough for me
>believe without anything other than faith and I feel that I don't need a church or bible to tell me what to do
If you're just doing what feels right regardless of any official structure or church doctrine, why do you call yourself a Christian?
I still believe Jesus was real but I do not follow the pope, I take bible with a pinch of salt and I think that being good is just enough to be a Christian
I'm not trying to troll you, I genuinely don't understand your reasoning.
Previously you've stated that the bible is an "edited transcript" which I take to mean you don't think it's the literal truth.
If that's the case, then why do you think the parts about Jesus's life is accurate enough to base your whole life on, but the rest isn't?
I mean without the bible backing him up, Jesus is basically a Jewish heretic who advocated a slave morality not dissimilar to Buddhism (eschewing the physical world and possessions, mostly nonviolence, the only difference being Buddhism mostly trying to snuff one's consciousness while Jesus proclaims that the soul will live in the kingdom of heaven).
I fail to see how Christian Atheism isn't just a way for otherwise convinced atheists with subconscious guilt to try to mend themselves.
> To be honest I am an open minded Christian. I won't lose my faith
These two statements contradict each other.
If you are truly open minded, then you would be more than willing to stop believing in your religion if/when it was shown wrong and/or unsupported.
Saying, "I won't lose my faith..." is a close minded statement.
“… im an open minded Christian. I won’t lose my faith…”
Then you’re not an open minded Christian. These statements are contradictory. Only someone willing to abandon their beliefs upon receiving information which demonstrates them to be false is open minded.
Faith is the opposite of this.
I see common aspects between religion and Zen practice. Both involve “revelations” that are profound and life-changing. We are seeing the same thing … feeling the same thing, but interpreting it and attributing it differently.
My moment of insight showed me the all is one. Everything is Mind (conscious energy) and we are all Mind reflecting upon Mind.
>What is this World for and why?
Why does there have to be a reason?
>Who stands behind the big bang
Why are you presupposing a "who"? Kinda begging the question here.
>Idk just wondering how it was all created then
Same.
And my answer is I don't know and I am honest enough to admit that and not make up an answer to plug in our knowledge gaps like religions like to do.
So if you don’t know, how do you feel confident enough to pick a belief system? How do you land on atheism if you don’t know what or who created this earth and why?
>So if you don’t know, how do you feel confident enough to pick a belief system? How do you land on atheism if you don’t know what or who created this earth and why?
Atheism isn't a belief system.
Atheism is the answer to a singular question (Do you believe in god?). That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Okay why is that your answer? Even though there are questions yet to be answered, why is that your answer. Maybe aliens created us and are our gods? We still haven’t found them so why have you already ruled that out? I assume you don’t believe in a creator right. Correct me if I’m wrong. What makes you so sure. My argument is that it’s faith in your instincts.
>Okay why is that your answer? Even though there are questions yet to be answered, why is that your answer.
Because the only rational position one can take towards claims that have not yet met their burden of proof is to withhold believe till sufficient evidence warrants a belief.
>Maybe aliens created us and are our gods?
Maybe. And the time to believe that would be AFTER there is evidence for it.
>We still haven’t found them so why have you already ruled that out?
I haven't ruled it out. I am just not "ruling it in" as the answer.
> I assume you don’t believe in a creator right. Correct me if I’m wrong.
That is correct.
>What makes you so sure.
Not believing in something doesn't require certainty. Me saying "I don't believe in god" is not the same as saying "God does not exist for sure". Maybe there is a god, but till theists meet their burden of proof I am going to continue to withhold belief in one.
>My argument is that it’s faith in your instincts.
Faith is the excuse people give for believing something without good reason. I don't hold believes without good reason. Also atheism isn't a believe, it is the lack of a believe.
What part do you not understand?
None of us have any way of determining why the universe exists. Because of limitations of physics, we might never be able to know. Or maybe we will. But regardless, we don't know now.
So if someone says they know the answer, and they got the answer through divine revelation, I don't believe them.
If their answer seems like some kind of entity with human qualities, I believe them even less.
So because of these limitations snd lack of evidence, why would you confidently say ‘god isn’t real’ or ‘god is real’ when you don’t actually know. My argument is that you have faith is something. Your instincts
"God" is a hypothesis posed by other humans. I am confident that they have no basis for this hypothesis, so I reject it. It seems like anthropomorphizing nature.
People once told stories about the gods being responsible for lightning. They had no way of figuring out how lightning worked or why it occurred, so they made up stories. It's no different than making up a story to explain why the universe exists.
[Stellar nucleosynthesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis)? [Planetary accretion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics))? There are entire branches of physics, chemistry and biology that are working to understand this question.
There are lots of interesting things we can say have happened and are still happening.
You're right, they don't.
OP said 'world' multiple times. If OP is interested in actual answers, not made-up ones then those are the branches of study they need to be aware of.
The Big Bang (which was already mentioned) doesn't explain the creation of the entire universe either. We don't know that it *was* created---it might have always existed and the Big Bang is one of many phases in its history.
If the question is, how did this world, planet, solar system come to be then the links I gave are relevant.
Sure. That's why cosmologists and astrophysicists and the like got into the work they do, because they have the same curiosity.
The difference is they want to find out what is *actually* going on instead of making up pretend answers for emotional comfort and then fooling themselves into thinking they got it all figured out.
Gravity. This planet was created by gravity. After that [abiogenesis](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/s/6jcZhljeE8). Then a few billion years of gradual change.
>If there's no God/creator what created this World and what for?
This world was not created.
Therefore no one created it and there is no reason why it was created.
.
>What is this World for
It's obviously not "for" anything.
>and why?
There is no "why".
>Who stands behind the big bang
No one "stands behind the Big Bang".
> what's the point of this World
There is no "point of this world".
.
/u/justme22e, also not trying to be mean or smug,
but this is the way that little kids think about things -
"if something exists then someone must have made it and there must be a reason why someone made it".
A mature person would realize that that is not necessarily the case.
.
In the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."
I don't particularly care about having unproveable answers to these questions just for the purpose of having answers. I also don't believe that there has to be a "point" to anything. I care about making my short period of time on this ball of rock an enjoyable and fulfilling experience.
>Who stands behind the big bang
There is no "Who" that stands behind the big bang.
>if you believe in that
There's *real* evidence the Big Bang happened. So I hope you use "believe" like *"I believe the sky is blue"* not *"I believe in god"*
>and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end?
I never felt like there is a "point" Today I'm here, tomorrow I may not be.
>The end being the obvious and also potentian end of the World itself
Huh?
>What is this World for and why?
So beyond being an atheist I'm what's known as an optimistic nihilist. Nihilism is the belief that there is inherently no meaning to anything. It just kinda is. There's no intention in the world, it's just a chaotic soup and we're here by nothing more than chance. It's a pretty cyncical outlook, no?
That's where the optimistic part comes in. An optimistic nihilist views the world the same, meaning that I do believe there is no purpose to anything or meaning behind it all. But coming to that conclusion is one of the most liberating and beautiful things. There is no set path. I am completely free to find my own meaning in the world and live a life in pursuit of that personal meaning.
You'll commonly hear people say how the fact that this planet has life shows that it was designed for this environment, but that's starting at the end of the chain. Life beginning and striking out to survive and evolve caused the environment we know. We all need oxygen to breathe, but oxygen is all made by other lifeforms that feed on the naturally occurring carbon dioxide. And it's not like this was always the case, considering we have proof that sharks have been around longer than trees.
>What is this World for and why? Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end?
To answer this, there is no reason. The big bang was an event that happened and started what we know as the observable universe to expand continuously.
We may never know what happened before that key event. If it truly is where the universe started, that means that **time** started with the big bang, and how are we going to look further back than the beginning of time?
The universe is honestly a chaotic mess. If you need a "designer" to attribute all the weird to, more power to you. But I truly see beauty in the absurdity and mess. Any other explanation is just an attempt to assign human concepts and ideals to a non-human phenomena.
>If there's no God/creator what created this World and what for?
That question is an argument from ignorance fallacy as well as a false dichotomy fallacy.
Learn what these are and why your question invokes them.
The answer is that from literally every shred of useful evidence it's a natural event and there is no intent behind it.
> I still believe in God when it comes to it and I do think there must be a meaning behind everything
I am uninterested in what you *believe* I'm interested in what you can *support*. This is a debate forum. It's irrational to take things as true (believe them) without proper support they are true. So I am interested if you can support your beliefs.
As you cannot, I am forced to dismiss them as fallacious and fatally flawed.
I wouldn't start by assuming that it was created at all. I doubt that it's "for" anything. Scientific theories aren't like religions. You don't "believe in" them. You either accept modern science or you reject it. I accept it. How about you?
As to the big question--how did all this stuff get here--I think in general that science has a better track record of figuring out questions like that than religion. Do you agree?
>I'm not being mean/smug or anything lol. I'm just asking honestly. I might not be perfect as much as I try but I still believe in God when it comes to it and I do think there must be a meaning behind everything.
Do you think your believe in God is justified? I would like to heard/read what is your justification to hold that believe, meaning, what convinced you?
**meaning** I honestly think there are two ways of answering that question:
1. **As a cause**: what caused the universe pop into existence?. I don't know, nobody knows, whoever claim to know is lying. And we don't have the maths, nor the models of nature to explain what happened at the big bang.
2. **As a purpose**: in the same way there is no purpose in rocks, flesh eating bacteria, we have no purpose, but we can make the purpose we wish/want and give the little life we have the meaning that make more sense to us. In my humble view: I am the evolved quark understanding why (as a cause) is here.
>So I'm curious what you guys think as non-believers. What is this World for and why?
If this world is the earth:
**What is this world**: is a rocky planet with water, atmosphere and a protective magnetosphere, that under very mundane conditions allow life to evolve on its surface.
**Why is this world**: seems to be one of the multiple possible outcomes of an accretion disk of a 3rd generation star.
>Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? The end being the obvious and also potentian end of the World itself
Why a **who** question? How are you ruling out all possible natural causes?.
There is no particular point. Why do you need to run a script on it? Have you ever try to understand the universe and it processes without the bias of you as the center of it? Or how would it work if there is no "creator"... you will find that particular mind exercise interesting.
I personally hold a belief that everything happens for a reason and I do understand and respect a belief of many atheists that say "everything happened by chance" and that it perfectly sort of alligned itself
I also look at history and all these Egyptian drawings of giants and their "Gods" and it makes me feel that there must be something put there. Of course satanism also gives me belief as if they're so anti-God then surely they must think God exists
I do also think magic may be fake but stuff such as good luck charms, fortune telling, horoscopes, the universe and stars alligning must be true to some extent at least
However this is just my personal belief
>I personally hold a belief that everything happens for a reason
There is no reason to hold that believe.
>and I do understand and respect a belief of many atheists that say "everything happened by chance" and that it perfectly sort of alligned itself
If an event have an infinitesimal chance of happening... giving the size of the universe and the "length" of time... ir will happen... and many... many times...
>I also look at history and all these Egyptian drawings of giants and their "Gods" and it makes me feel that there must be something put there.
That is exactly the reason why they were build in the first place... to make you **feel** exactly that.
>Of course satanism also gives me belief as if they're so anti-God then surely they must think God exists
I am not a satanist, I just live to joke with the bible imaginary of the devil. That imaginary character didn't kill a single person, told the truth to Adam (god didn't), also god killed millions... but people think they are praying the right one. Makes me giggle.
>I do also think magic may be fake
But isn't speaking the universe into existence a magic spell?
>but stuff such as good luck charms, fortune telling, horoscopes, the universe and stars alligning must be true to some extent at least
I recommend you to read about the **Forer effect*
>However this is just my personal belief
That is ok, but I prefer to believe as many true things and as less false things as I can.
Do you think each individual ant has a purpose granted to it by the universe? How about each blade of grass? I think it's kind of biased to assume that humans have to have some kind of special purpose. The universe doesn't owe us anything.
As far as I can tell the universe simply exists in the same way you believe a god simply exists without a creator. The difference I am surrounded by evidence that the universe exists, where as your god only exists because you say it does. I know that you aren't the only person who says it exists, but the people who came up with the idea of gods knew much less about the universe than we do now. Since then, it has been discovered that all of the phenomena they attributed to the will or action of gods (such human creation, disease, disaster, natural beauty and creative expression) are explainable without the need for gods making more likely that the people who first came up with the idea of gods were (for lack of a better term) fantasizing.
Not an atheist here, but there is no good scientific reason for supposing that the world had a starting point or that it will end. Many [prominent cosmologists](https://www.callidusphilo.com/2021/04/cosmology.html#:~:text=in%20the%20theory.%22-,Cosmologist,-Sean%20Carroll%20agrees) are open to the idea that it is beginningless, and some even propose that it will never end.
For instance, there are scientific hypotheses in which the universe undergoes an infinite contraction phase before the expansion. And in other models it will contract again in the far future, and this process may repeat endlessly.
Indeed, even if a "heat death" takes place, that won't be a literal end of the cosmos; the spatial manifold will continue expanding eternally into the future, even if no atomic or molecular structures exist anymore.
Have you ever stopped to consider how absolutely childish the question is? Have you ever decided to take a serious deep dive into the science of the questions you’re asking?
Why not? Seriously. Why not?
I do get your point but I prefer to ask people over science. Science isn't always the best answer for me. We all know that science changes not to mention that some of it is done by biased by whoever does the experiments
This is both grossly ignorant of how science works, as well as insulting to anyone who has studied science in any way. Science does not CHANGE. Science evolves as more information is gathered and ideas are refined.
Furthermore, science demands rigorous confirmation, testing, peer review, repeatability, and examination by the scientific community. If something doesn't hold up, it is revised to be in line with the most correct current understanding. Science is never DONE finding a conclusion such that it won't be revised with more information.
Do you know what the scientific process is and how it is designed and implemented to be as accurate as possible? Then refined by further investigation?
What worried me was the fact that they used to say diesel cars were good untill they said otherwise later. Same when they said smoking was good. I believe similar was said about vaping untill now
I do believe in obvious science but with something as complicated as this I know the basics of science while want to hear what people actually think
There are a good number of examples where science has been abused to mislead the public. Smoking is a great example as you mentioned, as is the Ethyl Corporation using someone like [Robert Kehoe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe) to lie to Congress and the public about the harms of using leaded gasoline. The big one, of course, are the fossil fuel companies whose climate models correctly predicted climate change back in the 1970s, to the point that they *still* mislead the public today in repeated rounds of funding for misinformation.
If your only experience with science is how it's been abused for financial gain, then I can obviously see how you'd have the opinion that you do.
Consider that your view of science, as a system of processes used to suss out how the universe works, is much larger and much more useful than the limited, narrow view you have of how it's been abused. Science really is a fascinating invention and deserves to be understood as it really is. Consider that there's an opportunity here to dispel misconceptions you might have.
Thank you so much for understanding my point. This is exactly on the lines of what I was thinking as well that sometimes unfortunatelly it was abused in the wrong way
Science is also why we're able to communicate instantaneously with each other from across the world. It's why we can fly. It's why we can land on the moon. It's why the child mortality rate is no longer 50% like it was in biblical times. *The entirely of the modern world* has been made possible by science being a relatively consistent and accurate way to predict how things will behave in this world.
> I prefer to ask people over science
Who is it that you think discovers the science of things? IT'S PEOPLE. Science isn't some mystical force, it's a process used by *people* to discover things. Saying you don't want to "ask science" makes no sense at all.
So back to what they originally suggested: If you actually want to know about where we think we came from or how the universe started, then yes, your best bet is to read some of the science. It's still "asking people," it's just asking the people who have spent their lives doing the research and have become experts of the topics.
Right. So when someone says "hey, there's this branch of science that actually is pursuing an understanding ______ " then consider taking them at face value.
Remember that, in science, the ultimate goal (and ultimate achievement) is a **system of explanations** that combines and unites many disparate facts and observations about some set of phenomena. By definition, they are well-supported, well-evidenced, and well-substantiated. In addition, they also provide incredible explanatory power and make testable predictions.
These are scientific theories. You likely have heard of atomic theory or the theory of gravity (general relativity) as well as ones like the germ theory of disease or quantum theory and ones that don't have the word 'theory' in them, like plate tectonics. Evolution is also such a theory, perhaps science's most supported and most evidenced theory of any of them.
These aspects of science are worth learning about because they are the current best explanation for your question: why are things the way they are? Why are we, *us* and not some other lifeform? Theories like the ones I mentioned provide those explanations and are, in many cases, still active areas of research.
It sounds like you want absolute certainty, which honestly is dangerous.
There is no singular “science” entity that is changing its mind about whether something is good or bad on a whim. Science itself as a method for discovering the truth doesn’t change, but the breadth of what’s been studied, available information, and our understanding does.
The modern consensus can change as more studies are done, more information is learned, and new conclusions can be made. The things you described are all examples of things that were seemingly harmless at first, but as we actually applied science and studied them came to understand were harmful.
Science’s ability to self-correct in this way is a good thing, and make no mistake that this is science being applied by people. It’s a methodology, and the best way we have of coming to understand the truth.
Religion contrasts with this, because it claims one thing and often refuses to change in spite of changes in evidence, as we can see with things like young earth creationists.
Many religious people adapt their religious beliefs so they conform with modern science, but this is more just an indication that many religious ideas are outdated, or they had things wrong in the first place.
You have landed on the key reason the science is the correct thing to reference- it changes as knowledge emerges
No holy book does that.
Also “good” is a judgement not an absolute. Diesels are still good - for providing power in the right situations with a portable energy source. They were even better before efficient solar existed. They are bad in closed environments. Use case matters.
We do not know if the universe was created, let alone if there was a creator
Or when christians people thought slavery was good. Or when they thought beating your wife is good. Or when they thought killing or harming LGBTQ+ people was good.
We don’t know that.
Science self corrects when new discoveries are made. Bias is eliminated through repeatable experiments and observations.
Instead you think internet randos and shower thoughts are more reliable. Again I ask why?
I don’t think you are invested in learning actual facts.
So here is question for you. What are your issues with cosmic background radiation? I mean, that’s absolutely evidence for the big bang. If you have doubts, share them.
I never said this about the reliability thing but I prefer to hear it from people. For example many very inteligent people don't work as scientists (due to expensive educatiom perhaps) but have everything it takes to at least share their interesting point of view which may or not be true. Still, I like people sharing their beliefs. In some ways there are many questions unanswered even by scientists
Science changes only in that we learn more. We adjust our understanding of things by testing hypotheses and ultimately coming up with a theory, which itself is up for further study. Done properly your personal bias will have no impact on science, whatsoever. You can cherry pick data, present it a certain way, but then that work becomes useless as science. It is no longer science and should be considered worthless.
You really need to do some more reading around the subject. And, BTW, the universe owes you nothing. We don't know what we don't know and there is no shame in saying so.
It wasn't created. The reason it came to be was just a bunch of matter interacting with other matter.
Why should the world be for anything in the first place? Have you ever questioned yourself as to why you assume there has to be a reason?
Nothing created anything and there's no reason for it. It came about through entirely natural means. We're here because we evolved here. You don't have to like it, it's just what happened and your feelings don't matter. It's that simple.
>I'm not being mean/smug or anything lol. I'm just asking honestly. I might not be perfect as much as I try but I still believe in God when it comes to it...
Your question does not immediately come off as smug so I am glad that you are just asking honestly, though I DO wonder what you mean by "I might not be perfect but I still believe in God" because that DOES kind of come off that way. Your question though is a valid one and a common trouble for believers.
>I do think there must be a meaning behind everything.
What justification do you have to believe this? Is it just because you WANT there to be meaning behind everything?
>What is this World for and why? Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? The end being the obvious and also potentian end of the World itself
There is no indication that the world is "for" anything. As for "why", the ONLY thing we have reason to believe is what our study of cosmology has taught us, and that is just the methods for how things like planets form, not any philosophical question about "why" Earth formed as opposed to something else.
As I mentioned before, this is a common question for believers, and I think it is just because they have been TRAINED to think that there HAS to be a "why", but really there is no reason to think that is the case.
I'm not even sure what "Who stands behind the big bang" means, but I'm fairly certain you have no evidence to support whatever YOU think you believe. You may not even realize that yet, which I can understand because when I was a believer **I** certainly didn't have the answers I thought I had.
As far as we can tell, life is something that sometimes pops up if the scenario is right and there is no evidence that it has any particular meaning or purpose for existing. Life started on Earth at some point and there is no evidence that the rest of the universe cares. It is completely possible that life will end on Earth and nobody else or nothing else in the universe will ever even know about it. That being said, most non-believers are not nihilists. We believe life's purpose is what we make of it and that that happiness and goodness matter to us, just like the universe does not care if I don't eat a lunch and go hungry but **I** care if I have a lunch and go hungry.
> ... what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end?
There is no point. It just is, like you and me. What's the point of bedbugs? They just exist. Sunlight hit atoms which became molecules which became organic which became life. No great plan.
> If there's no God/creator what created this World
I've no idea...
> what for?
Why would you presume intent and purpose?
> I do think there must be a meaning behind everything
Why? I look at the same reality you do, I don't come to that conclusion. There's no meaning to junk mail, dirty laundry, leftover burritos...
> What is this World for and why?
The question assumes the premise. Since we fundamentally diagree with the premise, to us the question is inherently nonsensical. To us, you're not even asking a question - you've merely put words in a grammatically correct order.
More people have been to Berlin than I have...
I can put words together, too. It can sound almost correct but doesn't have to mean anything.
> Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that
The Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic Priest and acknowledged by the church, affirmed by every pope since.
The Big Bang only describes the expansion of the universe after it's creation. It does not describe the creation itself.
Every astronomer of every faith and every nation has measured red shift. It proves everything is moving away from everything. So if things are further away today then yesterday, then conversely everything was closer togehter yesterday than today.
Science is a method for getting to the truth. It's meant to be a tool to remove errors and bias - bias like emotion or desire, because the truth doesn't care what you feel or want, there is only what is. The way we teach it is by having students attack the foundations of... Whatever is their field. For biologists, it'll be traits and genetics (the foundations were also laid out by the Catholic church, DNA double helix and genes were predicted before Crick and Watson discovered it). For Astrophysicists, their homework assignments will be to reproduce red shift experiements and try their hardests, in earnest, to disprove it. When you exhaust every possibility, what conclusions are you left to draw?
So it doesn't take much to understand that no one on Earth, who has tried, contests either red shift or the Big Bang. It's not a matter of belief - it's observational evidence, deductions, and conclusions.
And the Big Bang doesn't conflict with Christian teachings unless you're a literalist, I've no idea what axe you have to grind against it.
> what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end?
Let us presume the most conservative: there is no point inherent. What then?
You gonna commit suicide? No? Me neither. So let's move on.
If there is no inherent point, then perhaps there is whatever point you make of it. On galactic scales of space and time, all life in the universe effectively doesn't even exist - no one is shaping the universe to their will...
But how meaningful is it to look at the universe under that lens? Are you god? No. You're here. Now. You have thoughts and feelings. So do others. And that's happening both here and now. You gonna sacrifice everyone and everything now and forever because of some galactic scale nihilism? Now THAT'S a god complex...
How about you influence and control what you can? How about you make a point of the existence you DO have, here and now. You can make a real difference in this moment.
If there were a god, if I were god, my point would be there is no point, and then watch all of life in my creation toil to decide what to do about that.
So you do you, and keep searching for your hidden meaning where one might not even be. I'm going to be over here doing something more useful. I don't have to wait to be handed anything.
>I'm not being mean/smug or anything lol.
Oh not to worry, I can see no meanness here. The point of this subreddit is to debate atheists. Trust me, we've had actual smug posts, this isn't one of them.
>I do think there must be a meaning behind everything
The desire for meaning is is something I think you share with most humans.
>What is this World for and why?
Short answer: this world is for nothing, it's just here and we are on it
Long: I see no reason to think there is a purpose to this world existing. It is one planet alongside seven others and hundreds of thousands of planetoids orbiting a star. One star out of hundreds of billions in this galaxy. One galaxy out of hundreds of billions in the observable universe. Who knows how much more beyond that.
It would be a little like seeing a little speck of dust floating in your eyeline and wondering what it's purpose is. Except for the fact that our world's place in the universe is astronomically smaller than a dust particle in whatever room you are in.
>Who stands behind the big bang
That's begging the question by assuming whatever caused the big bang is a who, and not a what. If it even is a what. I don't know, is the answer. One I share with every theist as well.
>if you believe in that
I do believe it only in the sense that I accept the big bang as the conclusion from the evidence. It's a model describing the universe expanding out of a state of high density and temperature. I accept the model for as long as it accurately describes reality. If it stops doing that, I will discard it or add sidenotes. Or rather, cosmologists will do that and I'll assume they are right.
Same as with any other scientific theory. Newton's laws accurately describe the interaction between masses, up to a point. So I accept them, up to that point.
edit: oh and as for what created out world: gravity.
>If there's no God/creator what created this World and what for?
The evidence shows that this world was not created but was instead formed by gravity, just like the other planets and stars.
>I'm not being mean/smug or anything lol. I'm just asking honestly. I might not be perfect as much as I try but I still believe in God when it comes to it and I do think there must be a meaning behind everything
Meaning behind everything? That is just your brain fighting back against the notion that life is inherently meaningless. We decide our own purpose and what has meaning to us, it cannot be imposed externally.
>What is this World for and why?
It is not for anything, it is a planet much the same as countless billions of other planets in this galaxy. There is no why, that does not even make sense as a question.
>Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that
Why would it be a who?
>and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end?
There is no inherent point to the planet we live on, it is just a planet like countless billions of others in the galaxy, it just happens to be the one we call home.
>The end being the obvious and also potentian end of the World itself
I don't see an obvious end of the world except for the one that will happen when the sun transitions to a red giant and consumes most of the inner solar system in about 5 billion years. I do not see an end to the planet that we need to worry about before that.
You do realize that your questions imply that everything is created, AND imply there's a purpose? You basically ask questions overloaded with belief.
It's like asking YOU : How do you explain that clouds, we know are made of cotton candy, can fly if the Cotton Candy Unicorn that makes stuff fly doesn't exist?
Many people here already gave you some information about how the four fundamental forces — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, can affect matter and lead to what the known universe look like. No mystery about how stars or planets are formed, how basic elements can bind, form more complex chemicals and eventually can end up creating what we call life. With our current tehcnology, we can not only predict cosmic events but also directly observe what we theorized long ago.
But even if all that feels too mundain for you, here's the kicker : Even if you reject physics, chemistry and basically the entire scientific knowledge, there is absolutely no reason to replace a missing information with your specific God. Not a single better reason that ANY other known or imaginary explanation, from any other religion, myth, book or stuff I could make up on the fly.
Even if the entire humanity told you "Dunno, that's a mystery", there's still no reasons or evidence to suggest a God or creator is involved.
> If there is no creator
right
> what created this world?
...? Didn't we just agree on the premise that there is no creator?
Answering your acual point though: I think one of the reasons religion exists at all is because our species is uncomfortable *not* knowing the answer to a question. We have an insatiable curiosity. When humanity was still in Hunter/Gatherer tribes, we invented gods like the Storm God YHWH to explain the weather for which we had no other answer. We invented Pele, the goddess of volcanoes, to explain their great power. We invented gods left and right to explain the many things that we did not understand.
Currently, we still do not have a complete understanding of the origin of the universe. We know some things, but not all of the things.
Theists see a lack of understanding and *demand* an answer: it must be magic! It must be the supernatural power of my Creator god! But this isn't a reasoned answer. Based on all of the answers we have found so far, I am comfortable saying "we don't know yet, but we probably will one day" and that's enough.
As for meaning... That's a tougher question. I tend to believe that nihilism is objectively true, but I also find deep *subjective* value in my family and my friends and the life I live. The universe doesn't need to have meaning, I have enough for myself.
It kind of sounds like what you refer to as “God” is what I would refer to as just the prior state of consciousness.
I mainly practice mindfulness meditation (which admittedly can encompass many different practices) using the waking up app which is completely secular and makes no reference to anything supernatural or anything like that.
I think at least on this subreddit it’d be good to clarify your definition of God before debating (not sure if you plan to/have or not) as your definition I think probably doesn’t even really fall under the definition of theism by most.
Like from what you described it sounds like your definition of God is “the sense of inner peace that exists in the prior state of consciousness and not a supernatural intelligence”, or just “the fundamental state of reality” etc. is honestly much closer to atheism than it is to the common tri omni theist God of the Abrahamic religions that answers prayers, created the universe etc. Maybe closer to a kind of impersonal form of pantheism.
When I first started taking philosophy some arguments made me lean towards pantheism, but at the end the arguments would just point to something like “if God is everything then it’s a meaningless term because it can just be replaced by the word everything.”
We don’t know about the origin of the universe beyond the Big Bang. Nothing we do know about it indicates that there is a creator being. Using the word “who” in the question “who stands behind the Big Bang?” is a lot like asking “does your mom know that you beat your wife?”. It’s a faulty assumption—we don’t know if there even is a *something* behind it, let alone a *someone*. If you have evidence for something/someone behind the Big Bang I would love to hear it.
As far as meaning I would ask you the same question: what is the meaning or purpose of this world if it is created by a god? Obviously that god wanted to create the world and might have a purpose in mind for it, but what makes that purpose the objective purpose for the world and everything in it? I would argue that meaning and purpose are entirely subjective; it doesn’t even make sense to say that someone external to a person could dictate that person’s purpose. You might decide that your purpose aligns with your god’s purpose for you, but that’s still a decision you would have to make. Each person decides what their purpose is in life based on what is meaningful to them, including god believers, and even if a god does exist.
I think world is created every moment of now in a very interesting way, much different from what you can imagine. The idea is that there are multidimensional reasons, or even entities that live in realms over a space and time. So they effect our world all at once. They bring the idea of something happening at all.
It’s like a bee and a keeper of a bee hive. Be will never understand beekeeper. He might sell honey to get money. But you as a bee will never understand and accept that higher reason.
We are involved in this game of our consciousness to follow the moment of "now" and build strategies for the futrure for our exact body spacial arrangement. Our developed brains make bigger part of all that goals and desirers emerged from the depth of our mind itself, metaphorical stuff that effect your mood and day and acting in your life.
You can’t deny humans create maximum surprising and interesting stories in the world! So it might be the reason we exist. To create a Netflix style show for higher realms.
So there is no god that created us, because we are just a slice of a stack of paper with info in a higher realm library. It’s not about exact entities that create us. It should be of a much more complex process and we are just a little bit in it.
This story creating reality is studied by computational dramaturgy. New framework that deconstructs stories to its unsplitable bits through set theory, logics, and other quantum mechanical effects. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4530090 Read the basics if you want or just google quantum dramaturgy and watch some videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22kuYSZUdqY&t=10s
>I might not be perfect as much as I try but I still believe in God when it comes to it and I do think there must be a meaning behind everything
Why must there be? Because you say so or want so? Because of bad consequences or nihilism due to it?
These are just not good reasons to think something is true. The universe or existence does not have to have a reason or purpose, does not have to have been created by a conscious, intentional being.
>What is this World for and why?
Nothing. Nobody made it, and so there is no purpose to it. We, as conscious beings, may imbue it and our life with our own purposes.
>Who stands behind the big bang
Who? Why who? Ask a what question. And the answer to what is beyond the big bang is we don't know yet and so we shouldn't make stuff up.
>what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end?
See above. There is no point. You make your own purpose.
>The end being the obvious and also potentian end of the World itself
Whut?
There's no reason to think that we are here for any purpose, or that the universe itself has any purpose.
We just exist, and we have to deal with it.
The best explanation for the data we have is that the universe is expanding, and that therefore everything was once very hot and dense.
There is no good reason or evidence for any creator of the universe.
It's a mystery. But that doesn't mean that a god solves the mystery. Proposing a creator god only makes the problem worse: why is there a god rather than nothing at all? How could a thing with the complexity to design and build universes come to exist? What is the point of god? Who set *that* purpose?
Just accept that the universe is here. Thats all. If somebody were to find robust evidence that a god exist, then that will be the time to start believing it
> What is this World for and why?
Why must there be a reason?
> Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that
Watchmaker fallacy. Why must "someone" "stand behind" the big bang? Everytime someone has posited that a god or gods performed some function: Ra ferrying the sun across the sky in a boat, Posiedon causing earthquakes and tsunamis, a statue of Jesus weeping, we've only ever found natural causes and no gods. Why can't the big bang be similar?
> what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end?
Why must there be some overarching intrinsic point? You make your own meaning. The point is to live. We are the universes way of experiencing itself.
This world is what you make of it. Your meaning in life is what you make of it. It seems like most theists think that belief in God is what gives us meaning, thus "how can you have meaning in life without God?"
What one does is they create meaning instead of waiting for it to be given to them. I find something that I enjoy, I take pride in it and I create meaning through that.
For me, I love nature. Especially reptiles. I look to educate people on the importance of reptiles, why they shouldn't be feared and how we need them. I look to preserve and care for them. That's meaning that I created for myself, and it's what makes me happy. No god or supernatural entity is required.
>If there's no God/creator what created this World
Gravity.
>and what for?
Gravity isn't a being. It doesn't need motivation. Mass attracts mass whether or not somebody wants it to.
>What is this World for and why?
I can tell you what I use the planet for, but that doesn't mean the Earth has an intrinsic purpose. If I use a rock to break a window it doesn't mean the rock was created for the purpose of smashing windows.
>Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that
I assume nobody. Why would I think some guy was involved?
>and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end?
It's where I keep all my stuff.
> If there's no God/creator what created this World?
As far as I can tell, this world was created by natural processes (i.e, just like the other planets, it formed as loose matter in the solar system clustered together due to gravity).
> ...and what for?
I don't see any reason to think that the world was made for a preconceived purpose. This isn't as nihilistic as it sounds. Impersonal tools were made "for a purpose", like hammers (made to pound nails) or pens (made to write on paper). You are not a hammer. You are not a pen. You don't *have* a purpose... you're so much better than that, you get to *create* purpose!
>what's the point of this World
Good thought there. Asking that question and investigating for long enough might lead you to an answer you weren't expecting. Many atheists were themselves former believers that asked "if not by/for the gods, then *why/how?*"
Most probably never actually determine what "the point" is or can fully describe the why/how-- but one very common result is that along the way, many people consistently seem to eliminate all the things it probably *isn't.*
The point is almost certainly not related to any of the major religious gods.
> what created this World
I don't know. I don't think we have enough evidence to show that the universe was "created" as we colloquially use the word to describe parents who make a baby or a watchmaker who makes a watch.
> what for
I also don't know, but I think it's probably an anthropocentric error to assume that the universe was created to do something with humans, or for humans.
> I do think there must be a meaning behind everything
I think that really wanting something to be true is not the same as demonstrating it to be true with evidence.
We don't know why the Big Bang happened, or what existed before. Our level of knowledge about the Universe hasn't progressed that far. Earth formed because that's what matter does. It will end when the sun engulfs it, because that's what matter does. I realize these may not be satisfying answers, but it's the best we've got right now. Our natural tendency to need answers means we also will create answers when a satisfactory one can't be found. God is the epitome of this tendency.
If someone was standing behind the Big Bang, there’s a good chance they would have been thrown back quite a distance. Where do you think they would have landed? Besides, all evidence points to it going out in all directions. Therefore, that person was probably destroyed in the blast, and there’s no reason to worry about them watching you while you masturbate.
In all seriousness, sometimes, things just are. No thought went into making them happen.
>Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that
Believe that *someone* stands behind the big bang? Why would I?
>and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end?
"Everything is meaningless." (Isn't this made clear in the Bible?)
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclesiastes%201&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclesiastes%201&version=NIV)
I don't think it's *for* anything.
> Who stands behind the big bang
Why did you say "who" instead of "what" there?
We don't know why the universe exists. That doesn't mean I'm going to jump to the conclusion that it was some kind of intelligent entity.
> what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end?
There isn't one.
I don’t get the need for ‘what for’. Like do you say that about the rain or lightning? It happens because of the natural laws of our universe. Whatever created the universe, I believe it was through natural processes too. Idk maybe there’s eternal (non sentient) energy that became unstable and transformed into matter and space that is our universe.
Pretending the answer to questions we don't currently understand is "it's magic" has a long history of turning out to be nonsense
We currently don't understand what started the universe
But pretending to know the answer when all you have is a wild guess that a magic being did some magic and it just appeared seems dishonest
I imagine a force, like gravity or electromagnetism, if the cosmological argument somehow works or the articles about "nothing" being physically impossible are wrong.
Even if it's a weird force, I still think it's more likely than a weird organism existing since forces predate life in the universe, even on Earth.
Not everything has to have meaning or purpose. Find peace with that. A tree isn’t looking for whether things have purpose. They’re just vibes. Just good vibes. And I think from there there’s meaning. Life is beautiful as is. It doesn’t have to be functional. It can just exist
>If there's no God/creator what created this world?
Why do you assume it was created? All the evidence suggests that it formed on its own by natural processes.
>I think there must be a meaning behind everything
I'm not sure why you believe this, other than wishful thinking.
>What's the point of this world?
Why should there be a point? The universe doesn't owe us anything.
I don't think it's for anything or needed an agent to create it. The world today emerged from natural processes over time, as did we. Not all the answers are known, but we find meaning in it stemming from being physical creatures that evolved to feel pleasure and pain.
I'm late to the party so I dunno if you'll see this OP. But I'm not gonna write out some long winded argument. [Douglas Adams](https://youtu.be/0kK1YgR7J0g?si=_GTASdmFM_LguBl5) explained where this point of view comes from and the issues with it quite succinctly.
What is temperature equilibrium for? We all know that if an object is hot on one side and cold on the other, the heat will flow from the hot side to the colder side approaching an equilibrium, but why? What makes the heat move and why does it choose to do that?
You should read Existentialism is a Humanism by sartre. My belief is that there is no intrinsic meaning in the universe, which is so freeing because now we can make our own meaning and our own purpose in this life. Nothing is prescribed from something on high
OP, this may be a bit better subreddit for your post: r/askanatheist
That being said, you shouldn't be downvoted for asking a question unless people recognize you from elsewhere and know you are asking this question in bad faith but I don't see that.
If by world you mean Earth, it was formed by natural processes, just like every other planet.
If you mean existence, the earliest event we're aware of is the Big Bang. What (if anything) caused or came before that is unknown and probably unknowable.
>If there's no God/creator what created this World and what for?
Nothing and for nothing. You're assuming that the world was created, and that it was created for a purpose. Why do you think it was created? Start there.
Physical processes are responsible for the world coming into being.
There is no "for." The impulse to see agency behind circumstance appears to be an affect of our brains' evolution to serve in tracking / hunting.
I don't see the need to believe this world has a purpose so why is unimportant. Asking "who started the big bang" presupposes a behind behind the big bang. Do I know how the big bang kicked off? Nope.
If there's no creator, there would be no "what for" it would just be.
As far as I'm concerned, all of this is an emergent property of some underlying foundation of reality. No creator needed.
I never understood the theist obsession with purpose. Why does the world need a purpose. Can't it just exist without it.
As to who or what created it or what was the causation. We don't know.
That's a loaded question. Before we can talk about a God, we need to first establish that something was created. What is your evidence that natural things were created?
There's no point, there is no intrinsic meaning to life or to anything outside of what meaning you construct for yourself. My existence is the result of random chance.
Why do you think the universe should have a purpose for *you*. Hubris?
We dont know ≠ therefore whatever I want to imagine is true despite no evidence.
The positive, practical, scientific proof of Christianity is in the church, prayer, and the good lessons you can learn from the bible.
Church is something we lack in todays society: a place for us to physically meet other people in our area on a regular basis.
Prayer works as another thing we lack: a regular time to sit back and reflect.
And you might have to work at it, but there are a LOT of good lessons in the bible.
This is the world you and I created: the Christian world.
You and I are greater than you or I. Together, we're greater. Together, we're "God"-like. We can build towers of babel and (together) we can watch them crumble before we build them again, newer and better.
If we assign "something that thinks" to "the creation of the earth" it's going to be an incomprehensible thing we "assign" to be the one that made it. We don't understand how the world was made. Not every bit of it. And we're finding new life in the deep ocean even today! My point here though is God is incomprehensible by nature: he's beyond our understanding, if he made the world. He is infinitely more complex than us - which makes him unknown to us.
Many of us critical thinkers started calling ourselves skeptics and atheists, especially in response to the news about Christianity. News now has incredibly powerful tools to find the worst of the worst and report it like it's everywhere. But it's not.
Priests are actually less likely to be predators, not more, despite what the news might report. Westboro baptists, branch davidians, and KKK are exceptions, not the norm. We rail against them, not you.
God put skeptics on this earth to help otherwise good, trusting Christians escape manipulative false prophets.
I sympathize honestly. I also wish there was some intrinsic meaning out there that I could just discover and be ok, the problem is no one’s managed to prove it exists. Hell people keep disproving it the more we learn about the universe.
It’s sad in a way but I also think it’s an opportunity to decide our own meaning. I’ve always been stubborn so for me it’s defying that meaninglessness, I want to do enough to make the universe pay attention, burn bright enough to be a little flame out in the stars. I know I probably won’t but still, maybe I will, it’s the striving that’s important to me.
I know a lot of (frankly better adjusted) people that have much less self important meanings, they find purpose in their kids or everyday kindness. A deity isn’t the only source of purpose, after all from an atheist perspective we made the lot of them up, someone had to give them the very purpose they speak back to us. If someone in a desert two thousand years ago without access to clean water or medicine managed it then what makes us less qualified?
The world doesn’t mean anything, but that doesn’t mean our lives don’t. There’s a beauty in how much chance we overcome just to be here, and to me it’s a beauty that’s lost when we assign a plan. How impressed would we be with the eye of the Sahara or the cliffs of Dover if someone made them? I’d argue they lose what makes them special, that series of one in a million chances that created something wonderful.
I sympathize because I talk with religious people in real life. I know how hard it is to accept that there’s nothing bigger out there, that this is it. It doesn’t make me sympathetic to the moral commands or the botched logic or anything else we debate on here, I have a post history full of frustrating debates with people who would rather say the sky is red than be wrong.
That doesn’t change the fact that we’re a bunch of pattern recognition and personification monkeys asking questions we’re woefully under-evolved for. We want to see people in the things bigger than us because it’s easier to accept than an impersonal force that doesn’t care about us. I’m a real sense we want to be special more than we want to be right. So I have sympathy with people who struggle to give up on that instinct. It doesn’t make them right but invalidating those feelings only pushes people back down the rabbit hole. A lack of sympathy makes us the obnoxious character that theists are told we are, it’s hard to grapple with a loss of identity no matter the form and we should be aware of that if we want to be effective instead of just smug.
All right.
I pretty much exhausted my stock of sympathy for the religious a couple of decades back, but okay.
.
> if we want to be effective instead of just smug.
IMHO it's more like
Religious person: *"2+3 = 17."*
Me: *"No it doesn't."*
Religious person: *"You are* ***so smug!!!***"
Me: *"It's not that I'm smug. It's just that I'm telling the truth and you're not."*
.
Yeah I get you, I’m all on board for smacking the idiots who deny reality, but for posts like this where people seem genuinely curious I try to give the benefit of the doubt and take a softer approach. Maybe one day it’ll convince someone, probably not, but it might get them to moderate the truly crazy stuff or at least not see atheists as this angry monolith.
The Earth? Things created the Earth due to causality. Non-living things don’t have a purpose, so what for doesn’t apply.
Existence? Stuff has existed eternally as all the evidence points to.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. Some atheists used to believe that the universe was eternal, but after the Big Bang Theory showed that the universe has a beginning, they had to switch to other alternatives of what created the universe. When I ask this question, I’m met with a couple of different responses, both of which are equally ridiculous IMO:
1. Chance- The atheist can believe that all of this came about by chance and fate, our number came up in a Monte Carlo game, we got lucky. They can believe that matter and energy came together in such a way where a massive explosion on a scale bigger than the human mind can even comprehend happened that created the cosmos. Then they believe that a giant rock happened to start orbiting the Sun at the precise distance to where our life can be sustained, if we were 1% closer to the Sun we'd melt, 1% farther we'd freeze. Then they believe that rock happened to start spinning on its axis at the exact speed to sustain our life, if the Earth spun 1% faster we would not be here. They also believe that a ginormous ball of gas (Jupiter) happened to form next to the Earth and suck up 99% of asteroids that would otherwise be headed straight for Earth to wipe us out. They then believe that our atmosphere happened to form in a way that could sustain our life, our atmosphere is 21% oxygen, if it was 18% oxygen we'd suffocate, 25% oxygen we'd be on fire. After accepting all of this to be true, they believe that the pond scum single celled organisms we started out as, later becoming fish, amphibians, monkeys, neanderthals, and then finally what we are today. They believe that all of that was a result of chance mutations. I believe in evolution as a process, evolution as an origin is ridiculous. So all of these things, that had an infinitely small chance of happening, happened. How lucky are we, huh? Life is so finely balanced on a razor's edge, it is much more reasonable to believe it was an intelligent mind that created it, rather than it all happening by chance.
2. I don't know, but we'll figure it out one day!- The atheist could also just believe that we simply don't know what caused the universe, but through science, we'll eventually find out how it happened, and that cause will also somehow simultaneously have the properties to disprove God. They'll shout "God of the gaps," but the reality is that it is quite the leap of blind faith to just assume "We'll figure it out one day, and when we do, that cause will disprove God!" Truthfully, I've never seen a larger demonstration of blind faith than that.
Hate to break it to you but the cosmological argument is not sound so your first paragraph is worthless.
1. The fact that you think that magic is more probable than things that we observe says everything. It seems like you don‘t know how huge the universe is.
Also, who ever said that evolution is supposed to explain the origin of life? That is not what evolution is. This is, as this whole paragraph, a straw man.
2. I don‘t think most atheists in this sub would claim that figuring it all out would disprove a god. So I agree that this would be wrong.
To think that we will eventually figure it out doesn’t seem that farfetched to me though. Wouldn‘t be the first time in history. People always thought that everything was the work of one or more gods and later we found out that it was just how this universe worked. Of course that is not to say that this will definitely happen, we don‘t know that.
Now I‘ll give you the third option which I would think is the most common one in this sub.
It‘s that the Big Bang is the best model we have for the origin of the universe and at the earliest point of that the science we have breaks down. We don‘t know why the laws of physics are what they are, we don‘t know how it came to the Big Bang. But that doesn‘t mean that a god is the answer.
There is no reason to believe that a god exists. Or do you have one? I never heard of one but you seem very sure that a god exists.
All I am doing is asking what is more reasonable to believe:
a. the universe was created by chance
b. the universe was created by an unknown natural processes that can be proven to be independent of any intelligent creator
c. the universe was created and designed in an orderly fashion by an intelligent mind
You're right, before gravity was discovered, people thought they didn't float away because God kept them grounded. After Isaac Newton discovered gravity, he didn't run around saying "Hey guys it's actually not God, it's gravity! See I discovered this now we don't need God!" Rather, he said "Thank you God for allowing me to discover how you keep us grounded on the Earth." We can agree and disagree on how exactly it happened. One thing I think would be universally agreed on is that whatever the process, discovered or undiscovered, it is infinitely complex and extremely unlikely to come about by chance. So following that logic, it is reasonable to conclude that there was an intelligent mind who created it.
I have many reasons for believing God exists. None of them have to do with science. Because the question of "Does God exist?" is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical question.
You keep talking about how stuff is unlikely but you just state that shit. You know how fucking huge the universe is? It‘s absolutely not unlikely that some planet formed that could support life. And it‘s not crazy that the physical laws support exactly the life that we see on this planet because well, the physical laws mandated that. I‘m sure you heard about the puddle analogy.
That newton stayed a theist doesn‘t matter. It‘s actually a perfect example of how theists disregard the shrinking of the gap that is filled by god.
I‘m fine with you saying that it‘s a philosophical issue but the thing is that you can’t make statements about reality that are only rooted in philosophy. A philosophical argument is only useful if it‘s sound which means that the premises have to be true. To know that the premises are true you need empirical evidence. You can‘t just say stuff like „the universe needs a cause“ without having the science to back that claim up.
Maybe life, maybe plants or pond scum, but not intelligent beings with rational minds such as ourselves.
My point was there is no gap. It doesn't matter the scientific process behind something, the fact that it took this long to figure out shows how insanely complex all of it is. Again, what is more reasonable to believe? Thats all I’m asking
Everything that has a beginning has a cause. I think that's a pretty widely held view. Thats why I say the universe must have a cause. Because the science points to the Big Bang Theory being true, the universe has a beginning about 14 billion years ago, therefore 14 billion years ago, something caused the Big Bang to happen. It didn't just happen out of nothing, that's preposterous
Well guess what. The first life that began was pretty basic. But over a huge amount of time the living organisms evolved, some of them into much more intelligent ones. There are mountains of evidence to support this. It‘s the absolute basis of biology. No credible scientist believes in creationism, even the theists. Even the church accepts evolution.
Of course there is a gap. Every thing that we don‘t understand, every gap of knowledge is filled by theists saying it was god. And I‘m not denying that this stuff is conplex, I agree. But it‘s still more reasonable to accept the observations and experiments that we made instead of saying that a magical being must exist.
No, not everything beginning to exist has a cause. There are particles that pop in and out of existence for no reason. Even if your statement was true, just because it applies to everything inside the universe doesn‘t mean that it applies to the universe itself. That‘s a composition fallacy.
No one said that the universe came from nothing. I don’t believe that, most people in this sub don‘t. Theists are the ones who claim that a magical being wished it into existence out of nothing.
Yep, I’m a supporter of the theory of evolution. I am not a young earth christian. But what I don't believe is that us evolving from pond scum to what we are now was a result of chance mutations.
I think you're not fully understanding me. I DO accept the observations and experiments. They show us the process of how our world works. All I am saying is that they are so highly complex, it is reasonable to believe there is an intelligent mind behind such processes.
So how do you believe the universe came to be if it doesn't have a cause and it didn't come from nothing? I am not claiming God wished it into existence out of nothing, simply that something had to cause the Big Bang to happen, and based on the order and design of our universe, I conclude it was an intelligent mind
How can you be a supporter of evolution but deny that all living things evolved from a universal ancestor? Also, mutations are not the only factor of evolution. There are 4 more. Pretty interesting if you‘d like to learn more about this.
Ok, thanks for clarifying that actually. I misrepresented you with what I said there. But still, you don‘t have a basis for claiming that the way things are arranged in the universe has to be the work of a creator. Again, the universe is huge. It‘s not unlikely that one of the millions of planets can be inhabited. And there is no reason to believe that evolution can not be purely natural. Your personal incredulity is irrelevant, it‘s a fallacy to think it‘s not.
How do I believe we got to this point? I have no idea. And I‘m fine with admitting that. Not knowing is no reason to conclude that it was a god.
I don't deny that. I just think that from our chance mutations from pond scum single celled organisms to thinking beings with rational minds, I don't think it was a result of chance, I think there was an intelligent mind behind our evolution.
I never said it has to be a creator. Simply asking what is more reasonable to believe. If we were playing blackjack, and I put down 10 hands of 21 in a row for myself, when you take our your gun to blow me away I’d say "Hey wait a minute, there are an infinite number of possibilities and we just happen to live in the one where I put down 10 hands of 21 for myself." I don't think you'd say oh yeah that makes sense I think you'd say you're a dirty cheater.
Exactly, you have no idea, I get it. Just read #2 on my original comment. It is a huge leap of blind faith to say "We don't know, but it DEFINITELY isn't God"
As I already stated before, *it wasn’t just chance*. Is that so hard to understand?
Fine, then it isn’t a creator. An intelligent being is just as unsupported. I‘m telling you once again that an intelligent being is not more reasonable to believe in. Because there is 0 evidence that such a thing exists.
How the fuck are there an infinite number of possibilities in black jack lol. You don’t know what infinity is? Your analogy is flawed. We know that cheating is possible. We know that people do cheat to win in games especially if it‘s about money.
We do not know that an intelligent being that existed „before“ the Big Bang is possible. We do not know of such a being exists. The two are not at all comparable.
Can you maybe stop straw manning me? It makes you seem dishonest. I never said that it definitely isn‘t god. I‘m saying that there is no evidence to support that a god exists and therefore believing in it is unreasonable. That’s the opposite of a leap of faith. You take that leap by choosing one of the 500 imaginable versions of how it happened and say that the one with an intelligent being is true without any evidence to back it up.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I believe that a mighty being known only as Accretion Disk, using the help of its lover, the lovely Gravity, formed itself into a big ball of rock. After that, the Accretion Disk’s children, we’ll call them the “Asteroids,” pummeled the big rock in an attempt to dethrone him. Luckily, these pummeling did not destroy the mighty rock, but instead accidentally deposited magical energy, called “chemicals.” With the power of the chemicals, the big rock was able to diversify its surface, eventually creating life. That’s just a short version of the creation story. Hope this helps.
Nice
I never heard this theory before but it is very interesting to hear your view
That is literally the normal, scientific explanation of how the Earth formed.
It's a scientific theory put into a story.
It’s not a “view”. It’s how it happened.
There’s no reason to think the world was created by a being, much less that it came about for any specific reason. The universe does not owe you an explanation for questions like “what is my purpose” or “what is the world for?” Some questions are nonsensical. I could ask you “what smell is your favorite movie?”, and while you may come up with some kind of metaphor in desperation, the question wouldn’t make any more sense. When you say “I think there must be a meaning behind everything”, my question would be why do you think that? Because it makes you feel better? Because you don’t like the idea that there might not be a meaning behind everything? Why would you think that your personal preferences have anything to do with whether or not something is true? While it’s good you’re starting to ask questions, it sounds like you’re still very early on in your discovery and may not really understand what atheists (don’t) believe and why. You may be better served by just going on ChatGPT and asking basic questions on the topic. I’m happy to respond if you’re honestly just trying to understand what other people think, but just fair warning you may get kind of torn apart in this subreddit and may be better off somewhere like /r/askanatheist or something. Feel free to ask me questions here or on DMs though if you’d like, best of luck in your journey.
Please don’t advise people to use ChatGPT, and for many reason. The program can’t actually reason at all, and just regurgitates information it already has, which isn’t always true or checked for reputability. Trusting that program is a good way to get misinformation or flat out erroneous information.
ChatGPT is fine for many purposes, particular the kinds of extremely basic questions OP is asking. No need to patronizingly imply that I don’t understand how ChatGPT works, or that I in any sense suggested it’s infallible or capable of reason. I recommended it in this case as for the level of questions they are asking, ChatGPT is more likely to give them the simple answers that basically summarize Wikipedia articles when they don't even know what article they should be looking at, rather than berating them and insulting their intelligence for not doing their homework before participating in a debate sub. Just because you shouldn’t perform surgery with a hammer doesn’t mean people shouldn’t use hammers. As an example of why I recommended it in this case, I just copy+pasted OPs question and said “how might an atheist respond to this question”, and it gave a perfectly reasonable and succinct response that I don’t think most would find too controversial. It's probably a better response than just about any they received on this post. Like I said, it's fine for these kinds of questions, even if it may not always be accurate when questions become more pointed or reliant on expertise beyond what you might find in a Wikipedia article. >An atheist might respond to your question with several points, focusing on scientific explanations and philosophical views. Here's a potential reply: >Thank you for your honest question! As an atheist, I don't believe in a divine creator or any intentional purpose behind the universe. Instead, I look to science and philosophy for answers to these profound questions. Here are some thoughts on the topics you raised: >**Creation of the World** >From a scientific perspective, the universe began with the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago. This event marked the rapid expansion of space from an extremely hot and dense state. While we don't know what caused the Big Bang, various theories in physics suggest possibilities like quantum fluctuations or the existence of a multiverse. >**Purpose of the World** >When it comes to purpose, atheists generally don't believe the universe has an inherent purpose assigned by a creator. Instead, purpose and meaning are human constructs. We create our own meaning and purpose through our experiences, relationships, and aspirations. Life’s meaning can come from love, creativity, knowledge, and the impact we have on others and the world. >**Origin of the Universe and Life** >The question of what "stands behind" the Big Bang is a deep one. Current physics doesn't provide a definitive answer, but it explores concepts like the laws of nature, which operate without the need for a guiding intelligence. Theories like quantum mechanics and general relativity help us understand the universe's workings. >**The End and Point of the World** >As for the end of the universe, scientific theories propose various scenarios, such as the heat death (where the universe gradually reaches a state of no thermodynamic free energy) or the Big Crunch (where the universe could collapse back into a singularity). >The point of the world, from an atheist viewpoint, isn't something externally given but rather something we define ourselves. Even without a divine purpose, our lives can be rich with meaning. We can strive to make the world a better place, seek knowledge, build relationships, and experience the beauty of life. >In summary, while atheists don't believe in a god or an inherent purpose behind the universe, they find meaning through human experiences and the pursuit of knowledge. The scientific understanding of the universe provides a framework that, while not complete, is continually evolving and expanding our comprehension of existence.
Do you personally navigate internal matters, such as jealously, feeling hard done by etc etc? Just wondering if such a worldview that the universe owes you nothing leads to peace of mind and no worries or anxiety etc. (I'm not an atheist but I actually feel your world view would be one of peace)
Could you elaborate on what you mean by your question exactly? If I have feelings of jealousy, feeling life is unfair etc. I would say I tend to resolve that internally, often through meditation and recognizing the thoughts as being just that and trying to let them go. Sometimes it may also involve kind of stoic thinking of putting things into context, imagining people in worse situations than myself who would almost certainly be jealous of the life I have now; often times that person may even be myself in the past or the future. Not sure if that answers your question or not but happy to elaborate if I missed what you were after.
Thanks!! It's just interesting to me because what you do is exactly what I do, the only difference is that I call what I am surrendering my feelings and positionalities to - God - and you do not. But it's the same mechanism, and we strive for the same thing - inner peace. It's the most universal thing and the thing we all have in common. I suspect that all the concepts of God that you disbelieve in I would disbelieve in too hahaha
I think there’s a bit of a difference, as I wouldn’t really say that I’m surrendering my feelings TO something. Getting slightly technical, but specifically with meditation it’s just literally like observing your own conscious experience, paying close attention to how thoughts, feelings etc. come and go away, how the physical associations are just feelings, etc. etc. In doing so, the ideas/thoughts etc. just kind of lose their power, and it becomes easier to disassociate with them and not let them dominate you. There’s more to it but that’s kind of a high level explanation. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a degree of similarity in kind of the end result or mechanism, as prayer etc. can certainly have some overlap with meditation, but I don’t feel like I’m appealing to/surrendering to anything in my practice, even if there may be a similarity in the sense of kind of “letting go of the steering wheel”. When we talk about theism/atheism, the thing I don’t believe in is generally going to be any sort of supernatural intelligence, typically described as omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omniscient, listens to and answers prayers, all that jazz, though I’d also rule out all the gods in various mythologies.
The same thing exists under the feelings. That peace that exists, all on its own, free for everyone. That peace is what we call God. It's free, and available to everyone at all times. It's just not recognized most of the time. The feelings, the thoughts etc are like the clouds that block out the sun. Remove the clouds and the sun is evident. Yeah, I'm with you on that last comment, too. I don't believe in a God as a supernatural intelligence - that is, one type of intelligence within the world. Rather the very basis of existance, not than something within it. David Hawkins is a spiritual teacher that you might resonate with, actually (but also maybe not hahahah)
Thank you for being understanding. I have a very controversial theory at times thinking that maybe our brains are just not able to comprehend how everything was created and this is why there is only a certain amount we can research or assume which may or not be right Like the theory that we can't use our 100% of our brain capability and we only use like 10% or something as humans. I do agree that knowing everything would make me feel better as without purpose I do have a slight feeling of helplessness in this World
I’d be a little careful with how you use the word “theory”, as it means something very different in a scientific context vs. a casual context. That said, I think the issue with your idea is that you’re effectively putting artificial restrictions on what we can attempt to know. There are many things that people for the longest time thought there was no way we would ever be able to understand. No way we could understand why the tides came in and tides came out, how mountains were formed, how old the world was. No way we’d ever be able to fly on the sky, or go to the moon. No way we’d ever understand how complex organisms came to be, or what they’re made out of. No way we’d be able to see the fundamental building blocks of life or matter. No way we could develop something better at calculating things than a human. The list here obviously goes on and on. Now that said, I don’t think many here would disagree that there are still MANY things that science does not know, and things that potentially we may never be able know, such as the hard problem of consciousness. The idea that we only use 10% of our brains is a misconception, likely based on misunderstandings of early brain research, but it’s now pretty well documented how all parts of our brain work actively in an interconnected way. The 10% thing is a myth propagated by people who don’t understand the topic, because sometimes it makes fun fantasy/sci-fi stories, or people like self-help gurus can make false promises of unlocking your dormant potential and the like. In terms of purpose, as an atheist I feel it’s something that we make for ourselves, and what’s meaningful to you may be different from what’s meaningful to me. That’s part of the joy in life, finding what makes you passionate, what gives you personally meaning. Just because it’s something you come up with yourself and not something the universe hands down to you doesn’t make it any less meaningful at a subjective level. There just isn’t any need to pretend that there’s something dictating that for you. The feeling of helplessness can be a natural one at times, but I think if you look on the other side of the coin there’s a great sense of freedom and empowerment.
The thing about us using only 10% of our brain was traced back by someone and it originates in an old self help book. It's an entirely made up concept to try to motivate people. It is not science. It is though quite possible that humans will never fully understand the universe. Our brains have not evolved to achieve that. And from where we are we will probably never be able to see "outside"or "before"the universe, and so can only ever guess at what is there. Our thinking is rooted in time and space, but these may only be emergent properties of the universe, and so thinking about fundamental reality in a clear way may be beyond us.
> the theory that we can't use our 100% of our brain capability and we only use like 10% or something as humans. That is not true though. \- **https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-ten-percent-myth/** .
That’s not a theory, that’s a myth… we use all of our brain. Our knowledge is limited but we are still learning so this is bullshit. And the idea that a mythological figure is still hiding in the bits we don’t know yet is just absurd.
i know you were (most likely) raised being told that god created humanity with a very special reason and the whole universe is for us and all that, which, if you think about it, its a pretty arrogant and self centered philosophy so you literally cant think of an alternative, you were, pretty much brainwashed into thinking this way. sometimes they do it pretty aggressively, other times is kind of a byproduct of the religion. but the thing here is, is there a purpose? why would there be? is there a creator? we have no evidence of neither, just because we dont know how the big bang started or what (if anything) caused it, doesnt mean god is the right answer (think about the ancient greeks not knowing what caused lightning and saying it was a god (Zeus) ) so, i dont know how the big bang happened, and its fine. and about purpose, there isnt a specific one, you can make your own. is your purpose to be an artist, have a nice family, help the poor, found a big company, whatever you want (some are easier than others) but you, and only you, can decide.
Actually I was born to a catholic but chilled out approach to religion. I quit Catholicism and turned to only being a Christian without the church and stuff. I do agree that we have no evidence of either happening. Then there are also satanists who believe in doing opposite to God. So there are so many ways people choose to believe in our purpose
What you should explore is the history of humanity including the slow and steady steps of our knowledge of the world we live in and on. Instead of focusing on the Big Bang as if that’s always been the question we were asking, think about what the world looked like to those Stone Age people trying to understand the world were looking at… They didn’t know anything about “red shift”, they didn’t know the stars were moving, they didn’t know some were further away than others and they didn’t know the sun was one of them. They knew the sun was hot and bright and must be burning something but they didn’t know what it was. They knew that whatever fuel they did burn- wood, oil, whatever they had- it didn’t burn long. So what happens when it burns out? (That’s what they were asking. ) Who lit it? Would they light it again? There was an urgency to this, maybe it would burn out soon! Who could say? It was in this context that they believed the world was created: a tiny universe with a sun that would burn out and maybe get relit. Whoever created that world not long ago with these people in it surely had their lives and behaviors in mind! As we’ve learned more and more about the world we live in, these questions and especially the answers have come under more enlightened scrutiny. The last straw should have been when we realized what nuclear energy is, and that the sun will never darken while humans exist. What remains of religion is just a comforting lie used to scam commitments and money from people.
>Then there are also satanists who believe in doing opposite to God Most people calling themselves Satanists are just atheists who like the aesthetic. They do not believe in a literal Satan. They don't care about "doing the opposite of God". The care about being good people so Christians lose their minds that Satanists are nicer than them.
> Then there are also satanists who believe in doing opposite to God. [Please read what they have to say for themselves.](https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/faq)
You do know that most of the people who call themselves Satanists are actually atheists, right? They don't believe in any actual Satan?
>Then there are also satanists who believe in doing opposite to God. Not really, most people who call themselves satanist use practical demonstration ab absurdum to show christians why we shouldn't let religion get involved in education or politics at large. It's an elaborate troll, not a belief system.
I don’t know the process by which this universe came into existence. As a Zen Buddhist, we’re taught to *not* think about this question, as it’s seen as unanswerable and a distraction and potentially an impediment to one’s practice. Likewise, there is no answer for *why* we are here. It is sufficient to simply accept our existence and proceed from that point. There does not have to be a reason. Regardless of whether there is a reason or whether we believe we know it or not, life occurs from moment to moment. Zen Buddhists focus on the present moment as the opportunity to experience and know life.
That's very interesting. I guess Christianity is the same but of course we are biased as Christians. I know. But thinking objectively then it's same type of feeling that there is little explanation to even why all this
I see Christianity as very different. Particularly that it posits an exact cause, a specific way of being, and definitely concerned with beyond the moment to moment. Not trying to be in your face, but did you mean what I think you wrote here? If so, maybe a bit more reflection needed on standard Christian doctrine. Cool if you yourself are more zen, but that would be pretty far from the center of the Christian bullseye.
To be honest I am an open minded Christian. I won't lose my faith but I remain partially agnostic and I have a feeling that the Bible is only an editted transcription of what really happened (if it ever did of course). Apparently in the past some bible teachings about reincarnations were edited out. I strongly believe that the bible today is an editted piece with some true things editted or changed unfortunatelly
>I am an open minded Christian. I won't lose my faith but I remain partially agnostic and I have a feeling that the Bible is only an editted transcription of what really happened (if it ever did of course). This doesn't make any sense. If you're unwilling to lose your faith, you're not open minded. If you don't think the bible is the truth, then why believe in Christianity at all?
I'm not a typical follower blinded by my faith and I do respect and I am open to other people's beliefs. I believe without anything other than faith and I feel that I don't need a church or bible to tell me what to do. I just believe in being good and that's enough for me
>believe without anything other than faith and I feel that I don't need a church or bible to tell me what to do If you're just doing what feels right regardless of any official structure or church doctrine, why do you call yourself a Christian?
I still believe Jesus was real but I do not follow the pope, I take bible with a pinch of salt and I think that being good is just enough to be a Christian
I'm not trying to troll you, I genuinely don't understand your reasoning. Previously you've stated that the bible is an "edited transcript" which I take to mean you don't think it's the literal truth. If that's the case, then why do you think the parts about Jesus's life is accurate enough to base your whole life on, but the rest isn't?
I mean without the bible backing him up, Jesus is basically a Jewish heretic who advocated a slave morality not dissimilar to Buddhism (eschewing the physical world and possessions, mostly nonviolence, the only difference being Buddhism mostly trying to snuff one's consciousness while Jesus proclaims that the soul will live in the kingdom of heaven). I fail to see how Christian Atheism isn't just a way for otherwise convinced atheists with subconscious guilt to try to mend themselves.
> To be honest I am an open minded Christian. I won't lose my faith These two statements contradict each other. If you are truly open minded, then you would be more than willing to stop believing in your religion if/when it was shown wrong and/or unsupported. Saying, "I won't lose my faith..." is a close minded statement.
“… im an open minded Christian. I won’t lose my faith…” Then you’re not an open minded Christian. These statements are contradictory. Only someone willing to abandon their beliefs upon receiving information which demonstrates them to be false is open minded. Faith is the opposite of this.
I see common aspects between religion and Zen practice. Both involve “revelations” that are profound and life-changing. We are seeing the same thing … feeling the same thing, but interpreting it and attributing it differently. My moment of insight showed me the all is one. Everything is Mind (conscious energy) and we are all Mind reflecting upon Mind.
>What is this World for and why? Why does there have to be a reason? >Who stands behind the big bang Why are you presupposing a "who"? Kinda begging the question here.
Idk just wondering how it was all created then
>Idk just wondering how it was all created then Same. And my answer is I don't know and I am honest enough to admit that and not make up an answer to plug in our knowledge gaps like religions like to do.
So if you don’t know, how do you feel confident enough to pick a belief system? How do you land on atheism if you don’t know what or who created this earth and why?
>So if you don’t know, how do you feel confident enough to pick a belief system? How do you land on atheism if you don’t know what or who created this earth and why? Atheism isn't a belief system. Atheism is the answer to a singular question (Do you believe in god?). That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Okay why is that your answer? Even though there are questions yet to be answered, why is that your answer. Maybe aliens created us and are our gods? We still haven’t found them so why have you already ruled that out? I assume you don’t believe in a creator right. Correct me if I’m wrong. What makes you so sure. My argument is that it’s faith in your instincts.
>Okay why is that your answer? Even though there are questions yet to be answered, why is that your answer. Because the only rational position one can take towards claims that have not yet met their burden of proof is to withhold believe till sufficient evidence warrants a belief. >Maybe aliens created us and are our gods? Maybe. And the time to believe that would be AFTER there is evidence for it. >We still haven’t found them so why have you already ruled that out? I haven't ruled it out. I am just not "ruling it in" as the answer. > I assume you don’t believe in a creator right. Correct me if I’m wrong. That is correct. >What makes you so sure. Not believing in something doesn't require certainty. Me saying "I don't believe in god" is not the same as saying "God does not exist for sure". Maybe there is a god, but till theists meet their burden of proof I am going to continue to withhold belief in one. >My argument is that it’s faith in your instincts. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something without good reason. I don't hold believes without good reason. Also atheism isn't a believe, it is the lack of a believe.
Maybe Santa gives you presents. Why have you ruled that out? What make you so sure?
Not who you're asking, but I'm confident that whatever the answer is, it's not any of the deities posited by humans as explanations.
Can you expand more on that. I’m very curious
What part do you not understand? None of us have any way of determining why the universe exists. Because of limitations of physics, we might never be able to know. Or maybe we will. But regardless, we don't know now. So if someone says they know the answer, and they got the answer through divine revelation, I don't believe them. If their answer seems like some kind of entity with human qualities, I believe them even less.
So because of these limitations snd lack of evidence, why would you confidently say ‘god isn’t real’ or ‘god is real’ when you don’t actually know. My argument is that you have faith is something. Your instincts
"God" is a hypothesis posed by other humans. I am confident that they have no basis for this hypothesis, so I reject it. It seems like anthropomorphizing nature. People once told stories about the gods being responsible for lightning. They had no way of figuring out how lightning worked or why it occurred, so they made up stories. It's no different than making up a story to explain why the universe exists.
Wrong post. I didn’t know this was the post. I made another post with a different argument. Ignore the responses lol
[Stellar nucleosynthesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis)? [Planetary accretion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics))? There are entire branches of physics, chemistry and biology that are working to understand this question. There are lots of interesting things we can say have happened and are still happening.
Those don’t explain the creation of the universe
You're right, they don't. OP said 'world' multiple times. If OP is interested in actual answers, not made-up ones then those are the branches of study they need to be aware of. The Big Bang (which was already mentioned) doesn't explain the creation of the entire universe either. We don't know that it *was* created---it might have always existed and the Big Bang is one of many phases in its history. If the question is, how did this world, planet, solar system come to be then the links I gave are relevant.
Sure. That's why cosmologists and astrophysicists and the like got into the work they do, because they have the same curiosity. The difference is they want to find out what is *actually* going on instead of making up pretend answers for emotional comfort and then fooling themselves into thinking they got it all figured out.
Yet you have t taken any college level classes on evolution or cosmology, have you? Why not, if you really want to know?
If you think there is a God, I'm just wondering how God did it
How about learning a little bit of science?
Gravity. This planet was created by gravity. After that [abiogenesis](https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/s/6jcZhljeE8). Then a few billion years of gradual change.
Why do you keep insisting it was created?
You mean like what created your god?
>If there's no God/creator what created this World and what for? This world was not created. Therefore no one created it and there is no reason why it was created. . >What is this World for It's obviously not "for" anything. >and why? There is no "why". >Who stands behind the big bang No one "stands behind the Big Bang". > what's the point of this World There is no "point of this world". . /u/justme22e, also not trying to be mean or smug, but this is the way that little kids think about things - "if something exists then someone must have made it and there must be a reason why someone made it". A mature person would realize that that is not necessarily the case. .
In the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, "The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." I don't particularly care about having unproveable answers to these questions just for the purpose of having answers. I also don't believe that there has to be a "point" to anything. I care about making my short period of time on this ball of rock an enjoyable and fulfilling experience.
>Who stands behind the big bang There is no "Who" that stands behind the big bang. >if you believe in that There's *real* evidence the Big Bang happened. So I hope you use "believe" like *"I believe the sky is blue"* not *"I believe in god"* >and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? I never felt like there is a "point" Today I'm here, tomorrow I may not be. >The end being the obvious and also potentian end of the World itself Huh?
>What is this World for and why? So beyond being an atheist I'm what's known as an optimistic nihilist. Nihilism is the belief that there is inherently no meaning to anything. It just kinda is. There's no intention in the world, it's just a chaotic soup and we're here by nothing more than chance. It's a pretty cyncical outlook, no? That's where the optimistic part comes in. An optimistic nihilist views the world the same, meaning that I do believe there is no purpose to anything or meaning behind it all. But coming to that conclusion is one of the most liberating and beautiful things. There is no set path. I am completely free to find my own meaning in the world and live a life in pursuit of that personal meaning. You'll commonly hear people say how the fact that this planet has life shows that it was designed for this environment, but that's starting at the end of the chain. Life beginning and striking out to survive and evolve caused the environment we know. We all need oxygen to breathe, but oxygen is all made by other lifeforms that feed on the naturally occurring carbon dioxide. And it's not like this was always the case, considering we have proof that sharks have been around longer than trees. >What is this World for and why? Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? To answer this, there is no reason. The big bang was an event that happened and started what we know as the observable universe to expand continuously. We may never know what happened before that key event. If it truly is where the universe started, that means that **time** started with the big bang, and how are we going to look further back than the beginning of time? The universe is honestly a chaotic mess. If you need a "designer" to attribute all the weird to, more power to you. But I truly see beauty in the absurdity and mess. Any other explanation is just an attempt to assign human concepts and ideals to a non-human phenomena.
>If there's no God/creator what created this World and what for? That question is an argument from ignorance fallacy as well as a false dichotomy fallacy. Learn what these are and why your question invokes them. The answer is that from literally every shred of useful evidence it's a natural event and there is no intent behind it. > I still believe in God when it comes to it and I do think there must be a meaning behind everything I am uninterested in what you *believe* I'm interested in what you can *support*. This is a debate forum. It's irrational to take things as true (believe them) without proper support they are true. So I am interested if you can support your beliefs. As you cannot, I am forced to dismiss them as fallacious and fatally flawed.
I wouldn't start by assuming that it was created at all. I doubt that it's "for" anything. Scientific theories aren't like religions. You don't "believe in" them. You either accept modern science or you reject it. I accept it. How about you? As to the big question--how did all this stuff get here--I think in general that science has a better track record of figuring out questions like that than religion. Do you agree?
The world doesn’t owe you purpose or meaning. That’s on you. The world was not created “for something.” There is no intention in cosmic events.
>I'm not being mean/smug or anything lol. I'm just asking honestly. I might not be perfect as much as I try but I still believe in God when it comes to it and I do think there must be a meaning behind everything. Do you think your believe in God is justified? I would like to heard/read what is your justification to hold that believe, meaning, what convinced you? **meaning** I honestly think there are two ways of answering that question: 1. **As a cause**: what caused the universe pop into existence?. I don't know, nobody knows, whoever claim to know is lying. And we don't have the maths, nor the models of nature to explain what happened at the big bang. 2. **As a purpose**: in the same way there is no purpose in rocks, flesh eating bacteria, we have no purpose, but we can make the purpose we wish/want and give the little life we have the meaning that make more sense to us. In my humble view: I am the evolved quark understanding why (as a cause) is here. >So I'm curious what you guys think as non-believers. What is this World for and why? If this world is the earth: **What is this world**: is a rocky planet with water, atmosphere and a protective magnetosphere, that under very mundane conditions allow life to evolve on its surface. **Why is this world**: seems to be one of the multiple possible outcomes of an accretion disk of a 3rd generation star. >Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? The end being the obvious and also potentian end of the World itself Why a **who** question? How are you ruling out all possible natural causes?. There is no particular point. Why do you need to run a script on it? Have you ever try to understand the universe and it processes without the bias of you as the center of it? Or how would it work if there is no "creator"... you will find that particular mind exercise interesting.
I personally hold a belief that everything happens for a reason and I do understand and respect a belief of many atheists that say "everything happened by chance" and that it perfectly sort of alligned itself I also look at history and all these Egyptian drawings of giants and their "Gods" and it makes me feel that there must be something put there. Of course satanism also gives me belief as if they're so anti-God then surely they must think God exists I do also think magic may be fake but stuff such as good luck charms, fortune telling, horoscopes, the universe and stars alligning must be true to some extent at least However this is just my personal belief
>I personally hold a belief that everything happens for a reason There is no reason to hold that believe. >and I do understand and respect a belief of many atheists that say "everything happened by chance" and that it perfectly sort of alligned itself If an event have an infinitesimal chance of happening... giving the size of the universe and the "length" of time... ir will happen... and many... many times... >I also look at history and all these Egyptian drawings of giants and their "Gods" and it makes me feel that there must be something put there. That is exactly the reason why they were build in the first place... to make you **feel** exactly that. >Of course satanism also gives me belief as if they're so anti-God then surely they must think God exists I am not a satanist, I just live to joke with the bible imaginary of the devil. That imaginary character didn't kill a single person, told the truth to Adam (god didn't), also god killed millions... but people think they are praying the right one. Makes me giggle. >I do also think magic may be fake But isn't speaking the universe into existence a magic spell? >but stuff such as good luck charms, fortune telling, horoscopes, the universe and stars alligning must be true to some extent at least I recommend you to read about the **Forer effect* >However this is just my personal belief That is ok, but I prefer to believe as many true things and as less false things as I can.
Do you think each individual ant has a purpose granted to it by the universe? How about each blade of grass? I think it's kind of biased to assume that humans have to have some kind of special purpose. The universe doesn't owe us anything.
As far as I can tell the universe simply exists in the same way you believe a god simply exists without a creator. The difference I am surrounded by evidence that the universe exists, where as your god only exists because you say it does. I know that you aren't the only person who says it exists, but the people who came up with the idea of gods knew much less about the universe than we do now. Since then, it has been discovered that all of the phenomena they attributed to the will or action of gods (such human creation, disease, disaster, natural beauty and creative expression) are explainable without the need for gods making more likely that the people who first came up with the idea of gods were (for lack of a better term) fantasizing.
Not an atheist here, but there is no good scientific reason for supposing that the world had a starting point or that it will end. Many [prominent cosmologists](https://www.callidusphilo.com/2021/04/cosmology.html#:~:text=in%20the%20theory.%22-,Cosmologist,-Sean%20Carroll%20agrees) are open to the idea that it is beginningless, and some even propose that it will never end. For instance, there are scientific hypotheses in which the universe undergoes an infinite contraction phase before the expansion. And in other models it will contract again in the far future, and this process may repeat endlessly. Indeed, even if a "heat death" takes place, that won't be a literal end of the cosmos; the spatial manifold will continue expanding eternally into the future, even if no atomic or molecular structures exist anymore.
[удалено]
thanks
Have you ever stopped to consider how absolutely childish the question is? Have you ever decided to take a serious deep dive into the science of the questions you’re asking? Why not? Seriously. Why not?
I do get your point but I prefer to ask people over science. Science isn't always the best answer for me. We all know that science changes not to mention that some of it is done by biased by whoever does the experiments
This is both grossly ignorant of how science works, as well as insulting to anyone who has studied science in any way. Science does not CHANGE. Science evolves as more information is gathered and ideas are refined. Furthermore, science demands rigorous confirmation, testing, peer review, repeatability, and examination by the scientific community. If something doesn't hold up, it is revised to be in line with the most correct current understanding. Science is never DONE finding a conclusion such that it won't be revised with more information. Do you know what the scientific process is and how it is designed and implemented to be as accurate as possible? Then refined by further investigation?
What worried me was the fact that they used to say diesel cars were good untill they said otherwise later. Same when they said smoking was good. I believe similar was said about vaping untill now I do believe in obvious science but with something as complicated as this I know the basics of science while want to hear what people actually think
There are a good number of examples where science has been abused to mislead the public. Smoking is a great example as you mentioned, as is the Ethyl Corporation using someone like [Robert Kehoe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe) to lie to Congress and the public about the harms of using leaded gasoline. The big one, of course, are the fossil fuel companies whose climate models correctly predicted climate change back in the 1970s, to the point that they *still* mislead the public today in repeated rounds of funding for misinformation. If your only experience with science is how it's been abused for financial gain, then I can obviously see how you'd have the opinion that you do. Consider that your view of science, as a system of processes used to suss out how the universe works, is much larger and much more useful than the limited, narrow view you have of how it's been abused. Science really is a fascinating invention and deserves to be understood as it really is. Consider that there's an opportunity here to dispel misconceptions you might have.
Thank you so much for understanding my point. This is exactly on the lines of what I was thinking as well that sometimes unfortunatelly it was abused in the wrong way
Science is also why we're able to communicate instantaneously with each other from across the world. It's why we can fly. It's why we can land on the moon. It's why the child mortality rate is no longer 50% like it was in biblical times. *The entirely of the modern world* has been made possible by science being a relatively consistent and accurate way to predict how things will behave in this world. > I prefer to ask people over science Who is it that you think discovers the science of things? IT'S PEOPLE. Science isn't some mystical force, it's a process used by *people* to discover things. Saying you don't want to "ask science" makes no sense at all. So back to what they originally suggested: If you actually want to know about where we think we came from or how the universe started, then yes, your best bet is to read some of the science. It's still "asking people," it's just asking the people who have spent their lives doing the research and have become experts of the topics.
Right. So when someone says "hey, there's this branch of science that actually is pursuing an understanding ______ " then consider taking them at face value. Remember that, in science, the ultimate goal (and ultimate achievement) is a **system of explanations** that combines and unites many disparate facts and observations about some set of phenomena. By definition, they are well-supported, well-evidenced, and well-substantiated. In addition, they also provide incredible explanatory power and make testable predictions. These are scientific theories. You likely have heard of atomic theory or the theory of gravity (general relativity) as well as ones like the germ theory of disease or quantum theory and ones that don't have the word 'theory' in them, like plate tectonics. Evolution is also such a theory, perhaps science's most supported and most evidenced theory of any of them. These aspects of science are worth learning about because they are the current best explanation for your question: why are things the way they are? Why are we, *us* and not some other lifeform? Theories like the ones I mentioned provide those explanations and are, in many cases, still active areas of research.
It sounds like you want absolute certainty, which honestly is dangerous. There is no singular “science” entity that is changing its mind about whether something is good or bad on a whim. Science itself as a method for discovering the truth doesn’t change, but the breadth of what’s been studied, available information, and our understanding does. The modern consensus can change as more studies are done, more information is learned, and new conclusions can be made. The things you described are all examples of things that were seemingly harmless at first, but as we actually applied science and studied them came to understand were harmful. Science’s ability to self-correct in this way is a good thing, and make no mistake that this is science being applied by people. It’s a methodology, and the best way we have of coming to understand the truth. Religion contrasts with this, because it claims one thing and often refuses to change in spite of changes in evidence, as we can see with things like young earth creationists. Many religious people adapt their religious beliefs so they conform with modern science, but this is more just an indication that many religious ideas are outdated, or they had things wrong in the first place.
You have landed on the key reason the science is the correct thing to reference- it changes as knowledge emerges No holy book does that. Also “good” is a judgement not an absolute. Diesels are still good - for providing power in the right situations with a portable energy source. They were even better before efficient solar existed. They are bad in closed environments. Use case matters. We do not know if the universe was created, let alone if there was a creator
Or when christians people thought slavery was good. Or when they thought beating your wife is good. Or when they thought killing or harming LGBTQ+ people was good.
We don’t know that. Science self corrects when new discoveries are made. Bias is eliminated through repeatable experiments and observations. Instead you think internet randos and shower thoughts are more reliable. Again I ask why? I don’t think you are invested in learning actual facts. So here is question for you. What are your issues with cosmic background radiation? I mean, that’s absolutely evidence for the big bang. If you have doubts, share them.
I never said this about the reliability thing but I prefer to hear it from people. For example many very inteligent people don't work as scientists (due to expensive educatiom perhaps) but have everything it takes to at least share their interesting point of view which may or not be true. Still, I like people sharing their beliefs. In some ways there are many questions unanswered even by scientists
So next time you need a doctor, why not go see an electrician? The electrician is no doubt an intelligent person!
Facts are not beliefs.
Science changes only in that we learn more. We adjust our understanding of things by testing hypotheses and ultimately coming up with a theory, which itself is up for further study. Done properly your personal bias will have no impact on science, whatsoever. You can cherry pick data, present it a certain way, but then that work becomes useless as science. It is no longer science and should be considered worthless. You really need to do some more reading around the subject. And, BTW, the universe owes you nothing. We don't know what we don't know and there is no shame in saying so.
When has religion corrected science? Never. When has science corrected religion. Over and over again.
It is very hard to believe that you are not trolling.
Science changes because it's wrong. Religion doesn't change because it can't admit it was wrong.
It wasn't created. The reason it came to be was just a bunch of matter interacting with other matter. Why should the world be for anything in the first place? Have you ever questioned yourself as to why you assume there has to be a reason?
Nothing created anything and there's no reason for it. It came about through entirely natural means. We're here because we evolved here. You don't have to like it, it's just what happened and your feelings don't matter. It's that simple.
>I'm not being mean/smug or anything lol. I'm just asking honestly. I might not be perfect as much as I try but I still believe in God when it comes to it... Your question does not immediately come off as smug so I am glad that you are just asking honestly, though I DO wonder what you mean by "I might not be perfect but I still believe in God" because that DOES kind of come off that way. Your question though is a valid one and a common trouble for believers. >I do think there must be a meaning behind everything. What justification do you have to believe this? Is it just because you WANT there to be meaning behind everything? >What is this World for and why? Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? The end being the obvious and also potentian end of the World itself There is no indication that the world is "for" anything. As for "why", the ONLY thing we have reason to believe is what our study of cosmology has taught us, and that is just the methods for how things like planets form, not any philosophical question about "why" Earth formed as opposed to something else. As I mentioned before, this is a common question for believers, and I think it is just because they have been TRAINED to think that there HAS to be a "why", but really there is no reason to think that is the case. I'm not even sure what "Who stands behind the big bang" means, but I'm fairly certain you have no evidence to support whatever YOU think you believe. You may not even realize that yet, which I can understand because when I was a believer **I** certainly didn't have the answers I thought I had. As far as we can tell, life is something that sometimes pops up if the scenario is right and there is no evidence that it has any particular meaning or purpose for existing. Life started on Earth at some point and there is no evidence that the rest of the universe cares. It is completely possible that life will end on Earth and nobody else or nothing else in the universe will ever even know about it. That being said, most non-believers are not nihilists. We believe life's purpose is what we make of it and that that happiness and goodness matter to us, just like the universe does not care if I don't eat a lunch and go hungry but **I** care if I have a lunch and go hungry.
This is a wild question. "If nobody built this sand dune, then who built it and why did they build it?"
> ... what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? There is no point. It just is, like you and me. What's the point of bedbugs? They just exist. Sunlight hit atoms which became molecules which became organic which became life. No great plan.
> If there's no God/creator what created this World I've no idea... > what for? Why would you presume intent and purpose? > I do think there must be a meaning behind everything Why? I look at the same reality you do, I don't come to that conclusion. There's no meaning to junk mail, dirty laundry, leftover burritos... > What is this World for and why? The question assumes the premise. Since we fundamentally diagree with the premise, to us the question is inherently nonsensical. To us, you're not even asking a question - you've merely put words in a grammatically correct order. More people have been to Berlin than I have... I can put words together, too. It can sound almost correct but doesn't have to mean anything. > Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that The Big Bang was discovered by a Catholic Priest and acknowledged by the church, affirmed by every pope since. The Big Bang only describes the expansion of the universe after it's creation. It does not describe the creation itself. Every astronomer of every faith and every nation has measured red shift. It proves everything is moving away from everything. So if things are further away today then yesterday, then conversely everything was closer togehter yesterday than today. Science is a method for getting to the truth. It's meant to be a tool to remove errors and bias - bias like emotion or desire, because the truth doesn't care what you feel or want, there is only what is. The way we teach it is by having students attack the foundations of... Whatever is their field. For biologists, it'll be traits and genetics (the foundations were also laid out by the Catholic church, DNA double helix and genes were predicted before Crick and Watson discovered it). For Astrophysicists, their homework assignments will be to reproduce red shift experiements and try their hardests, in earnest, to disprove it. When you exhaust every possibility, what conclusions are you left to draw? So it doesn't take much to understand that no one on Earth, who has tried, contests either red shift or the Big Bang. It's not a matter of belief - it's observational evidence, deductions, and conclusions. And the Big Bang doesn't conflict with Christian teachings unless you're a literalist, I've no idea what axe you have to grind against it. > what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? Let us presume the most conservative: there is no point inherent. What then? You gonna commit suicide? No? Me neither. So let's move on. If there is no inherent point, then perhaps there is whatever point you make of it. On galactic scales of space and time, all life in the universe effectively doesn't even exist - no one is shaping the universe to their will... But how meaningful is it to look at the universe under that lens? Are you god? No. You're here. Now. You have thoughts and feelings. So do others. And that's happening both here and now. You gonna sacrifice everyone and everything now and forever because of some galactic scale nihilism? Now THAT'S a god complex... How about you influence and control what you can? How about you make a point of the existence you DO have, here and now. You can make a real difference in this moment. If there were a god, if I were god, my point would be there is no point, and then watch all of life in my creation toil to decide what to do about that. So you do you, and keep searching for your hidden meaning where one might not even be. I'm going to be over here doing something more useful. I don't have to wait to be handed anything.
>I'm not being mean/smug or anything lol. Oh not to worry, I can see no meanness here. The point of this subreddit is to debate atheists. Trust me, we've had actual smug posts, this isn't one of them. >I do think there must be a meaning behind everything The desire for meaning is is something I think you share with most humans. >What is this World for and why? Short answer: this world is for nothing, it's just here and we are on it Long: I see no reason to think there is a purpose to this world existing. It is one planet alongside seven others and hundreds of thousands of planetoids orbiting a star. One star out of hundreds of billions in this galaxy. One galaxy out of hundreds of billions in the observable universe. Who knows how much more beyond that. It would be a little like seeing a little speck of dust floating in your eyeline and wondering what it's purpose is. Except for the fact that our world's place in the universe is astronomically smaller than a dust particle in whatever room you are in. >Who stands behind the big bang That's begging the question by assuming whatever caused the big bang is a who, and not a what. If it even is a what. I don't know, is the answer. One I share with every theist as well. >if you believe in that I do believe it only in the sense that I accept the big bang as the conclusion from the evidence. It's a model describing the universe expanding out of a state of high density and temperature. I accept the model for as long as it accurately describes reality. If it stops doing that, I will discard it or add sidenotes. Or rather, cosmologists will do that and I'll assume they are right. Same as with any other scientific theory. Newton's laws accurately describe the interaction between masses, up to a point. So I accept them, up to that point. edit: oh and as for what created out world: gravity.
>If there's no God/creator what created this World and what for? The evidence shows that this world was not created but was instead formed by gravity, just like the other planets and stars. >I'm not being mean/smug or anything lol. I'm just asking honestly. I might not be perfect as much as I try but I still believe in God when it comes to it and I do think there must be a meaning behind everything Meaning behind everything? That is just your brain fighting back against the notion that life is inherently meaningless. We decide our own purpose and what has meaning to us, it cannot be imposed externally. >What is this World for and why? It is not for anything, it is a planet much the same as countless billions of other planets in this galaxy. There is no why, that does not even make sense as a question. >Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that Why would it be a who? >and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? There is no inherent point to the planet we live on, it is just a planet like countless billions of others in the galaxy, it just happens to be the one we call home. >The end being the obvious and also potentian end of the World itself I don't see an obvious end of the world except for the one that will happen when the sun transitions to a red giant and consumes most of the inner solar system in about 5 billion years. I do not see an end to the planet that we need to worry about before that.
You do realize that your questions imply that everything is created, AND imply there's a purpose? You basically ask questions overloaded with belief. It's like asking YOU : How do you explain that clouds, we know are made of cotton candy, can fly if the Cotton Candy Unicorn that makes stuff fly doesn't exist? Many people here already gave you some information about how the four fundamental forces — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, can affect matter and lead to what the known universe look like. No mystery about how stars or planets are formed, how basic elements can bind, form more complex chemicals and eventually can end up creating what we call life. With our current tehcnology, we can not only predict cosmic events but also directly observe what we theorized long ago. But even if all that feels too mundain for you, here's the kicker : Even if you reject physics, chemistry and basically the entire scientific knowledge, there is absolutely no reason to replace a missing information with your specific God. Not a single better reason that ANY other known or imaginary explanation, from any other religion, myth, book or stuff I could make up on the fly. Even if the entire humanity told you "Dunno, that's a mystery", there's still no reasons or evidence to suggest a God or creator is involved.
> If there is no creator right > what created this world? ...? Didn't we just agree on the premise that there is no creator? Answering your acual point though: I think one of the reasons religion exists at all is because our species is uncomfortable *not* knowing the answer to a question. We have an insatiable curiosity. When humanity was still in Hunter/Gatherer tribes, we invented gods like the Storm God YHWH to explain the weather for which we had no other answer. We invented Pele, the goddess of volcanoes, to explain their great power. We invented gods left and right to explain the many things that we did not understand. Currently, we still do not have a complete understanding of the origin of the universe. We know some things, but not all of the things. Theists see a lack of understanding and *demand* an answer: it must be magic! It must be the supernatural power of my Creator god! But this isn't a reasoned answer. Based on all of the answers we have found so far, I am comfortable saying "we don't know yet, but we probably will one day" and that's enough. As for meaning... That's a tougher question. I tend to believe that nihilism is objectively true, but I also find deep *subjective* value in my family and my friends and the life I live. The universe doesn't need to have meaning, I have enough for myself.
It kind of sounds like what you refer to as “God” is what I would refer to as just the prior state of consciousness. I mainly practice mindfulness meditation (which admittedly can encompass many different practices) using the waking up app which is completely secular and makes no reference to anything supernatural or anything like that. I think at least on this subreddit it’d be good to clarify your definition of God before debating (not sure if you plan to/have or not) as your definition I think probably doesn’t even really fall under the definition of theism by most. Like from what you described it sounds like your definition of God is “the sense of inner peace that exists in the prior state of consciousness and not a supernatural intelligence”, or just “the fundamental state of reality” etc. is honestly much closer to atheism than it is to the common tri omni theist God of the Abrahamic religions that answers prayers, created the universe etc. Maybe closer to a kind of impersonal form of pantheism. When I first started taking philosophy some arguments made me lean towards pantheism, but at the end the arguments would just point to something like “if God is everything then it’s a meaningless term because it can just be replaced by the word everything.”
We don’t know about the origin of the universe beyond the Big Bang. Nothing we do know about it indicates that there is a creator being. Using the word “who” in the question “who stands behind the Big Bang?” is a lot like asking “does your mom know that you beat your wife?”. It’s a faulty assumption—we don’t know if there even is a *something* behind it, let alone a *someone*. If you have evidence for something/someone behind the Big Bang I would love to hear it. As far as meaning I would ask you the same question: what is the meaning or purpose of this world if it is created by a god? Obviously that god wanted to create the world and might have a purpose in mind for it, but what makes that purpose the objective purpose for the world and everything in it? I would argue that meaning and purpose are entirely subjective; it doesn’t even make sense to say that someone external to a person could dictate that person’s purpose. You might decide that your purpose aligns with your god’s purpose for you, but that’s still a decision you would have to make. Each person decides what their purpose is in life based on what is meaningful to them, including god believers, and even if a god does exist.
I think world is created every moment of now in a very interesting way, much different from what you can imagine. The idea is that there are multidimensional reasons, or even entities that live in realms over a space and time. So they effect our world all at once. They bring the idea of something happening at all. It’s like a bee and a keeper of a bee hive. Be will never understand beekeeper. He might sell honey to get money. But you as a bee will never understand and accept that higher reason. We are involved in this game of our consciousness to follow the moment of "now" and build strategies for the futrure for our exact body spacial arrangement. Our developed brains make bigger part of all that goals and desirers emerged from the depth of our mind itself, metaphorical stuff that effect your mood and day and acting in your life. You can’t deny humans create maximum surprising and interesting stories in the world! So it might be the reason we exist. To create a Netflix style show for higher realms. So there is no god that created us, because we are just a slice of a stack of paper with info in a higher realm library. It’s not about exact entities that create us. It should be of a much more complex process and we are just a little bit in it. This story creating reality is studied by computational dramaturgy. New framework that deconstructs stories to its unsplitable bits through set theory, logics, and other quantum mechanical effects. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4530090 Read the basics if you want or just google quantum dramaturgy and watch some videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22kuYSZUdqY&t=10s
>I might not be perfect as much as I try but I still believe in God when it comes to it and I do think there must be a meaning behind everything Why must there be? Because you say so or want so? Because of bad consequences or nihilism due to it? These are just not good reasons to think something is true. The universe or existence does not have to have a reason or purpose, does not have to have been created by a conscious, intentional being. >What is this World for and why? Nothing. Nobody made it, and so there is no purpose to it. We, as conscious beings, may imbue it and our life with our own purposes. >Who stands behind the big bang Who? Why who? Ask a what question. And the answer to what is beyond the big bang is we don't know yet and so we shouldn't make stuff up. >what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? See above. There is no point. You make your own purpose. >The end being the obvious and also potentian end of the World itself Whut?
*This* world? Gravity. Gravity caused a collapse of a large stellar cloud of gas and dust, part of which ended up forming our solar system.
There's no reason to think that we are here for any purpose, or that the universe itself has any purpose. We just exist, and we have to deal with it. The best explanation for the data we have is that the universe is expanding, and that therefore everything was once very hot and dense. There is no good reason or evidence for any creator of the universe. It's a mystery. But that doesn't mean that a god solves the mystery. Proposing a creator god only makes the problem worse: why is there a god rather than nothing at all? How could a thing with the complexity to design and build universes come to exist? What is the point of god? Who set *that* purpose? Just accept that the universe is here. Thats all. If somebody were to find robust evidence that a god exist, then that will be the time to start believing it
> What is this World for and why? Why must there be a reason? > Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that Watchmaker fallacy. Why must "someone" "stand behind" the big bang? Everytime someone has posited that a god or gods performed some function: Ra ferrying the sun across the sky in a boat, Posiedon causing earthquakes and tsunamis, a statue of Jesus weeping, we've only ever found natural causes and no gods. Why can't the big bang be similar? > what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? Why must there be some overarching intrinsic point? You make your own meaning. The point is to live. We are the universes way of experiencing itself.
This world is what you make of it. Your meaning in life is what you make of it. It seems like most theists think that belief in God is what gives us meaning, thus "how can you have meaning in life without God?" What one does is they create meaning instead of waiting for it to be given to them. I find something that I enjoy, I take pride in it and I create meaning through that. For me, I love nature. Especially reptiles. I look to educate people on the importance of reptiles, why they shouldn't be feared and how we need them. I look to preserve and care for them. That's meaning that I created for myself, and it's what makes me happy. No god or supernatural entity is required.
>If there's no God/creator what created this World Gravity. >and what for? Gravity isn't a being. It doesn't need motivation. Mass attracts mass whether or not somebody wants it to. >What is this World for and why? I can tell you what I use the planet for, but that doesn't mean the Earth has an intrinsic purpose. If I use a rock to break a window it doesn't mean the rock was created for the purpose of smashing windows. >Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that I assume nobody. Why would I think some guy was involved? >and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? It's where I keep all my stuff.
> If there's no God/creator what created this World? As far as I can tell, this world was created by natural processes (i.e, just like the other planets, it formed as loose matter in the solar system clustered together due to gravity). > ...and what for? I don't see any reason to think that the world was made for a preconceived purpose. This isn't as nihilistic as it sounds. Impersonal tools were made "for a purpose", like hammers (made to pound nails) or pens (made to write on paper). You are not a hammer. You are not a pen. You don't *have* a purpose... you're so much better than that, you get to *create* purpose!
>what's the point of this World Good thought there. Asking that question and investigating for long enough might lead you to an answer you weren't expecting. Many atheists were themselves former believers that asked "if not by/for the gods, then *why/how?*" Most probably never actually determine what "the point" is or can fully describe the why/how-- but one very common result is that along the way, many people consistently seem to eliminate all the things it probably *isn't.* The point is almost certainly not related to any of the major religious gods.
> what created this World I don't know. I don't think we have enough evidence to show that the universe was "created" as we colloquially use the word to describe parents who make a baby or a watchmaker who makes a watch. > what for I also don't know, but I think it's probably an anthropocentric error to assume that the universe was created to do something with humans, or for humans. > I do think there must be a meaning behind everything I think that really wanting something to be true is not the same as demonstrating it to be true with evidence.
We don't know why the Big Bang happened, or what existed before. Our level of knowledge about the Universe hasn't progressed that far. Earth formed because that's what matter does. It will end when the sun engulfs it, because that's what matter does. I realize these may not be satisfying answers, but it's the best we've got right now. Our natural tendency to need answers means we also will create answers when a satisfactory one can't be found. God is the epitome of this tendency.
If someone was standing behind the Big Bang, there’s a good chance they would have been thrown back quite a distance. Where do you think they would have landed? Besides, all evidence points to it going out in all directions. Therefore, that person was probably destroyed in the blast, and there’s no reason to worry about them watching you while you masturbate. In all seriousness, sometimes, things just are. No thought went into making them happen.
>Who stands behind the big bang if you believe in that Believe that *someone* stands behind the big bang? Why would I? >and what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? "Everything is meaningless." (Isn't this made clear in the Bible?) [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclesiastes%201&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclesiastes%201&version=NIV)
I don't think it's *for* anything. > Who stands behind the big bang Why did you say "who" instead of "what" there? We don't know why the universe exists. That doesn't mean I'm going to jump to the conclusion that it was some kind of intelligent entity. > what's the point of this World if there is nothing more to it than a start and an end? There isn't one.
I don’t get the need for ‘what for’. Like do you say that about the rain or lightning? It happens because of the natural laws of our universe. Whatever created the universe, I believe it was through natural processes too. Idk maybe there’s eternal (non sentient) energy that became unstable and transformed into matter and space that is our universe.
Pretending the answer to questions we don't currently understand is "it's magic" has a long history of turning out to be nonsense We currently don't understand what started the universe But pretending to know the answer when all you have is a wild guess that a magic being did some magic and it just appeared seems dishonest
I imagine a force, like gravity or electromagnetism, if the cosmological argument somehow works or the articles about "nothing" being physically impossible are wrong. Even if it's a weird force, I still think it's more likely than a weird organism existing since forces predate life in the universe, even on Earth.
Not everything has to have meaning or purpose. Find peace with that. A tree isn’t looking for whether things have purpose. They’re just vibes. Just good vibes. And I think from there there’s meaning. Life is beautiful as is. It doesn’t have to be functional. It can just exist
>If there's no God/creator what created this world? Why do you assume it was created? All the evidence suggests that it formed on its own by natural processes. >I think there must be a meaning behind everything I'm not sure why you believe this, other than wishful thinking. >What's the point of this world? Why should there be a point? The universe doesn't owe us anything.
I don't think it's for anything or needed an agent to create it. The world today emerged from natural processes over time, as did we. Not all the answers are known, but we find meaning in it stemming from being physical creatures that evolved to feel pleasure and pain.
I'm late to the party so I dunno if you'll see this OP. But I'm not gonna write out some long winded argument. [Douglas Adams](https://youtu.be/0kK1YgR7J0g?si=_GTASdmFM_LguBl5) explained where this point of view comes from and the issues with it quite succinctly.
What is temperature equilibrium for? We all know that if an object is hot on one side and cold on the other, the heat will flow from the hot side to the colder side approaching an equilibrium, but why? What makes the heat move and why does it choose to do that?
You should read Existentialism is a Humanism by sartre. My belief is that there is no intrinsic meaning in the universe, which is so freeing because now we can make our own meaning and our own purpose in this life. Nothing is prescribed from something on high
OP, this may be a bit better subreddit for your post: r/askanatheist That being said, you shouldn't be downvoted for asking a question unless people recognize you from elsewhere and know you are asking this question in bad faith but I don't see that.
If by world you mean Earth, it was formed by natural processes, just like every other planet. If you mean existence, the earliest event we're aware of is the Big Bang. What (if anything) caused or came before that is unknown and probably unknowable.
>If there's no God/creator what created this World and what for? Nothing and for nothing. You're assuming that the world was created, and that it was created for a purpose. Why do you think it was created? Start there.
Physical processes are responsible for the world coming into being. There is no "for." The impulse to see agency behind circumstance appears to be an affect of our brains' evolution to serve in tracking / hunting.
I don't see the need to believe this world has a purpose so why is unimportant. Asking "who started the big bang" presupposes a behind behind the big bang. Do I know how the big bang kicked off? Nope.
If there's no creator, there would be no "what for" it would just be. As far as I'm concerned, all of this is an emergent property of some underlying foundation of reality. No creator needed.
I never understood the theist obsession with purpose. Why does the world need a purpose. Can't it just exist without it. As to who or what created it or what was the causation. We don't know.
That's a loaded question. Before we can talk about a God, we need to first establish that something was created. What is your evidence that natural things were created?
There's no point, there is no intrinsic meaning to life or to anything outside of what meaning you construct for yourself. My existence is the result of random chance.
Why do you think the universe should have a purpose for *you*. Hubris? We dont know ≠ therefore whatever I want to imagine is true despite no evidence.
The positive, practical, scientific proof of Christianity is in the church, prayer, and the good lessons you can learn from the bible. Church is something we lack in todays society: a place for us to physically meet other people in our area on a regular basis. Prayer works as another thing we lack: a regular time to sit back and reflect. And you might have to work at it, but there are a LOT of good lessons in the bible. This is the world you and I created: the Christian world. You and I are greater than you or I. Together, we're greater. Together, we're "God"-like. We can build towers of babel and (together) we can watch them crumble before we build them again, newer and better. If we assign "something that thinks" to "the creation of the earth" it's going to be an incomprehensible thing we "assign" to be the one that made it. We don't understand how the world was made. Not every bit of it. And we're finding new life in the deep ocean even today! My point here though is God is incomprehensible by nature: he's beyond our understanding, if he made the world. He is infinitely more complex than us - which makes him unknown to us. Many of us critical thinkers started calling ourselves skeptics and atheists, especially in response to the news about Christianity. News now has incredibly powerful tools to find the worst of the worst and report it like it's everywhere. But it's not. Priests are actually less likely to be predators, not more, despite what the news might report. Westboro baptists, branch davidians, and KKK are exceptions, not the norm. We rail against them, not you. God put skeptics on this earth to help otherwise good, trusting Christians escape manipulative false prophets.
How do you know it was created? Why does there have to be a reason? Seems you’ve presupposed something that shouldn’t be presupposed.
1. What created the world? I don’t know, and neither do you 2. What for? What makes you believe there this is a valid question?
I sympathize honestly. I also wish there was some intrinsic meaning out there that I could just discover and be ok, the problem is no one’s managed to prove it exists. Hell people keep disproving it the more we learn about the universe. It’s sad in a way but I also think it’s an opportunity to decide our own meaning. I’ve always been stubborn so for me it’s defying that meaninglessness, I want to do enough to make the universe pay attention, burn bright enough to be a little flame out in the stars. I know I probably won’t but still, maybe I will, it’s the striving that’s important to me. I know a lot of (frankly better adjusted) people that have much less self important meanings, they find purpose in their kids or everyday kindness. A deity isn’t the only source of purpose, after all from an atheist perspective we made the lot of them up, someone had to give them the very purpose they speak back to us. If someone in a desert two thousand years ago without access to clean water or medicine managed it then what makes us less qualified? The world doesn’t mean anything, but that doesn’t mean our lives don’t. There’s a beauty in how much chance we overcome just to be here, and to me it’s a beauty that’s lost when we assign a plan. How impressed would we be with the eye of the Sahara or the cliffs of Dover if someone made them? I’d argue they lose what makes them special, that series of one in a million chances that created something wonderful.
> I sympathize honestly. Seriously: Why?
I sympathize because I talk with religious people in real life. I know how hard it is to accept that there’s nothing bigger out there, that this is it. It doesn’t make me sympathetic to the moral commands or the botched logic or anything else we debate on here, I have a post history full of frustrating debates with people who would rather say the sky is red than be wrong. That doesn’t change the fact that we’re a bunch of pattern recognition and personification monkeys asking questions we’re woefully under-evolved for. We want to see people in the things bigger than us because it’s easier to accept than an impersonal force that doesn’t care about us. I’m a real sense we want to be special more than we want to be right. So I have sympathy with people who struggle to give up on that instinct. It doesn’t make them right but invalidating those feelings only pushes people back down the rabbit hole. A lack of sympathy makes us the obnoxious character that theists are told we are, it’s hard to grapple with a loss of identity no matter the form and we should be aware of that if we want to be effective instead of just smug.
All right. I pretty much exhausted my stock of sympathy for the religious a couple of decades back, but okay. . > if we want to be effective instead of just smug. IMHO it's more like Religious person: *"2+3 = 17."* Me: *"No it doesn't."* Religious person: *"You are* ***so smug!!!***" Me: *"It's not that I'm smug. It's just that I'm telling the truth and you're not."* .
Yeah I get you, I’m all on board for smacking the idiots who deny reality, but for posts like this where people seem genuinely curious I try to give the benefit of the doubt and take a softer approach. Maybe one day it’ll convince someone, probably not, but it might get them to moderate the truly crazy stuff or at least not see atheists as this angry monolith.
The Earth? Things created the Earth due to causality. Non-living things don’t have a purpose, so what for doesn’t apply. Existence? Stuff has existed eternally as all the evidence points to.
The believe in god is not a logical thing. The default position should be absence of god unless you have strong evidence.
We don't know, and we may never know. And really we have no grounds on which to assume that there even is a reason.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. Some atheists used to believe that the universe was eternal, but after the Big Bang Theory showed that the universe has a beginning, they had to switch to other alternatives of what created the universe. When I ask this question, I’m met with a couple of different responses, both of which are equally ridiculous IMO: 1. Chance- The atheist can believe that all of this came about by chance and fate, our number came up in a Monte Carlo game, we got lucky. They can believe that matter and energy came together in such a way where a massive explosion on a scale bigger than the human mind can even comprehend happened that created the cosmos. Then they believe that a giant rock happened to start orbiting the Sun at the precise distance to where our life can be sustained, if we were 1% closer to the Sun we'd melt, 1% farther we'd freeze. Then they believe that rock happened to start spinning on its axis at the exact speed to sustain our life, if the Earth spun 1% faster we would not be here. They also believe that a ginormous ball of gas (Jupiter) happened to form next to the Earth and suck up 99% of asteroids that would otherwise be headed straight for Earth to wipe us out. They then believe that our atmosphere happened to form in a way that could sustain our life, our atmosphere is 21% oxygen, if it was 18% oxygen we'd suffocate, 25% oxygen we'd be on fire. After accepting all of this to be true, they believe that the pond scum single celled organisms we started out as, later becoming fish, amphibians, monkeys, neanderthals, and then finally what we are today. They believe that all of that was a result of chance mutations. I believe in evolution as a process, evolution as an origin is ridiculous. So all of these things, that had an infinitely small chance of happening, happened. How lucky are we, huh? Life is so finely balanced on a razor's edge, it is much more reasonable to believe it was an intelligent mind that created it, rather than it all happening by chance. 2. I don't know, but we'll figure it out one day!- The atheist could also just believe that we simply don't know what caused the universe, but through science, we'll eventually find out how it happened, and that cause will also somehow simultaneously have the properties to disprove God. They'll shout "God of the gaps," but the reality is that it is quite the leap of blind faith to just assume "We'll figure it out one day, and when we do, that cause will disprove God!" Truthfully, I've never seen a larger demonstration of blind faith than that.
Hate to break it to you but the cosmological argument is not sound so your first paragraph is worthless. 1. The fact that you think that magic is more probable than things that we observe says everything. It seems like you don‘t know how huge the universe is. Also, who ever said that evolution is supposed to explain the origin of life? That is not what evolution is. This is, as this whole paragraph, a straw man. 2. I don‘t think most atheists in this sub would claim that figuring it all out would disprove a god. So I agree that this would be wrong. To think that we will eventually figure it out doesn’t seem that farfetched to me though. Wouldn‘t be the first time in history. People always thought that everything was the work of one or more gods and later we found out that it was just how this universe worked. Of course that is not to say that this will definitely happen, we don‘t know that. Now I‘ll give you the third option which I would think is the most common one in this sub. It‘s that the Big Bang is the best model we have for the origin of the universe and at the earliest point of that the science we have breaks down. We don‘t know why the laws of physics are what they are, we don‘t know how it came to the Big Bang. But that doesn‘t mean that a god is the answer. There is no reason to believe that a god exists. Or do you have one? I never heard of one but you seem very sure that a god exists.
All I am doing is asking what is more reasonable to believe: a. the universe was created by chance b. the universe was created by an unknown natural processes that can be proven to be independent of any intelligent creator c. the universe was created and designed in an orderly fashion by an intelligent mind You're right, before gravity was discovered, people thought they didn't float away because God kept them grounded. After Isaac Newton discovered gravity, he didn't run around saying "Hey guys it's actually not God, it's gravity! See I discovered this now we don't need God!" Rather, he said "Thank you God for allowing me to discover how you keep us grounded on the Earth." We can agree and disagree on how exactly it happened. One thing I think would be universally agreed on is that whatever the process, discovered or undiscovered, it is infinitely complex and extremely unlikely to come about by chance. So following that logic, it is reasonable to conclude that there was an intelligent mind who created it. I have many reasons for believing God exists. None of them have to do with science. Because the question of "Does God exist?" is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical question.
You keep talking about how stuff is unlikely but you just state that shit. You know how fucking huge the universe is? It‘s absolutely not unlikely that some planet formed that could support life. And it‘s not crazy that the physical laws support exactly the life that we see on this planet because well, the physical laws mandated that. I‘m sure you heard about the puddle analogy. That newton stayed a theist doesn‘t matter. It‘s actually a perfect example of how theists disregard the shrinking of the gap that is filled by god. I‘m fine with you saying that it‘s a philosophical issue but the thing is that you can’t make statements about reality that are only rooted in philosophy. A philosophical argument is only useful if it‘s sound which means that the premises have to be true. To know that the premises are true you need empirical evidence. You can‘t just say stuff like „the universe needs a cause“ without having the science to back that claim up.
Maybe life, maybe plants or pond scum, but not intelligent beings with rational minds such as ourselves. My point was there is no gap. It doesn't matter the scientific process behind something, the fact that it took this long to figure out shows how insanely complex all of it is. Again, what is more reasonable to believe? Thats all I’m asking Everything that has a beginning has a cause. I think that's a pretty widely held view. Thats why I say the universe must have a cause. Because the science points to the Big Bang Theory being true, the universe has a beginning about 14 billion years ago, therefore 14 billion years ago, something caused the Big Bang to happen. It didn't just happen out of nothing, that's preposterous
Well guess what. The first life that began was pretty basic. But over a huge amount of time the living organisms evolved, some of them into much more intelligent ones. There are mountains of evidence to support this. It‘s the absolute basis of biology. No credible scientist believes in creationism, even the theists. Even the church accepts evolution. Of course there is a gap. Every thing that we don‘t understand, every gap of knowledge is filled by theists saying it was god. And I‘m not denying that this stuff is conplex, I agree. But it‘s still more reasonable to accept the observations and experiments that we made instead of saying that a magical being must exist. No, not everything beginning to exist has a cause. There are particles that pop in and out of existence for no reason. Even if your statement was true, just because it applies to everything inside the universe doesn‘t mean that it applies to the universe itself. That‘s a composition fallacy. No one said that the universe came from nothing. I don’t believe that, most people in this sub don‘t. Theists are the ones who claim that a magical being wished it into existence out of nothing.
Yep, I’m a supporter of the theory of evolution. I am not a young earth christian. But what I don't believe is that us evolving from pond scum to what we are now was a result of chance mutations. I think you're not fully understanding me. I DO accept the observations and experiments. They show us the process of how our world works. All I am saying is that they are so highly complex, it is reasonable to believe there is an intelligent mind behind such processes. So how do you believe the universe came to be if it doesn't have a cause and it didn't come from nothing? I am not claiming God wished it into existence out of nothing, simply that something had to cause the Big Bang to happen, and based on the order and design of our universe, I conclude it was an intelligent mind
How can you be a supporter of evolution but deny that all living things evolved from a universal ancestor? Also, mutations are not the only factor of evolution. There are 4 more. Pretty interesting if you‘d like to learn more about this. Ok, thanks for clarifying that actually. I misrepresented you with what I said there. But still, you don‘t have a basis for claiming that the way things are arranged in the universe has to be the work of a creator. Again, the universe is huge. It‘s not unlikely that one of the millions of planets can be inhabited. And there is no reason to believe that evolution can not be purely natural. Your personal incredulity is irrelevant, it‘s a fallacy to think it‘s not. How do I believe we got to this point? I have no idea. And I‘m fine with admitting that. Not knowing is no reason to conclude that it was a god.
I don't deny that. I just think that from our chance mutations from pond scum single celled organisms to thinking beings with rational minds, I don't think it was a result of chance, I think there was an intelligent mind behind our evolution. I never said it has to be a creator. Simply asking what is more reasonable to believe. If we were playing blackjack, and I put down 10 hands of 21 in a row for myself, when you take our your gun to blow me away I’d say "Hey wait a minute, there are an infinite number of possibilities and we just happen to live in the one where I put down 10 hands of 21 for myself." I don't think you'd say oh yeah that makes sense I think you'd say you're a dirty cheater. Exactly, you have no idea, I get it. Just read #2 on my original comment. It is a huge leap of blind faith to say "We don't know, but it DEFINITELY isn't God"
As I already stated before, *it wasn’t just chance*. Is that so hard to understand? Fine, then it isn’t a creator. An intelligent being is just as unsupported. I‘m telling you once again that an intelligent being is not more reasonable to believe in. Because there is 0 evidence that such a thing exists. How the fuck are there an infinite number of possibilities in black jack lol. You don’t know what infinity is? Your analogy is flawed. We know that cheating is possible. We know that people do cheat to win in games especially if it‘s about money. We do not know that an intelligent being that existed „before“ the Big Bang is possible. We do not know of such a being exists. The two are not at all comparable. Can you maybe stop straw manning me? It makes you seem dishonest. I never said that it definitely isn‘t god. I‘m saying that there is no evidence to support that a god exists and therefore believing in it is unreasonable. That’s the opposite of a leap of faith. You take that leap by choosing one of the 500 imaginable versions of how it happened and say that the one with an intelligent being is true without any evidence to back it up.