Religion is Man- Made

[Dontaskme]

We are all accustomed to believe that everything is made of something. We are taught that matter consists of molecules and that molecules are made of atoms which are themselves made of even smaller components. This line of reasoning makes sense initially but, as seen below, it cannot be sustained.

The notion that matter is made of something quickly leads to an infinite regress. If something is made of other things, what are the other things made of?
And so on, ad infinitum.
We are left with no choice other than to accept the truth that matter is made of nothing.
But how can this be? How can something be made of nothing? What is the logic?

The best way to understand the logic behind an ex-nihilo universe is to use an analogy.
Just as zero is the sum of all positive and negative numbers, nothing is the sum of everything positive and negative.
It sounds absurd but nothing is, in reality, everything. This means that all properties/things must come in complementary/opposite pairs so as to sum up to nothing.
It follows that any imbalance (a non-zero sum) must be corrected so as to conserve nothing.
Change/motion is thus nature's way of correcting a violation of the mother of all conservation principles, the conservation of nothing.
This law is applied universally, i.e., non-locally. The universe is one, as its name implies.

[henry quirk]

This so called real reality full of material objects have no more substance than that of a nightly dream or a movie on a tv screen.

An anecdote I relayed elsewhere in-forum...

I knew a smart guy who, after a few drinks, would rant about the illusory nature of reality. One of his favorite points was how matter is mostly empty space. I'd let him rant for a bit then smack my hand down hard on the table and say seems pretty fuckin' solid to me.

The quantum scale is spooky, but ours -- call it the human scale -- not so much.

You seem to be sayin' the spooky scale trumps, or is more real than, the human one.

I say the spooky scale is no more or less real or fundamental than the human scale or the planetary scale or the solar system scale or the galactic scale or the universal scale.

The table truly is mostly empty and pretty fuckin' solid both at the same time.

Scale & perspective.

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing is ever good if bad can happen to it.

Well, in the ideal, I agree. Good things should last.

But even the things that fade, get hurt, get stained or decay, or even die can be good.

You know that if you've ever owned a dog.

Oh well, life is just amazing then isn't it, it's all so good because I have a dog.

I didn't say that.

But if you've had a dog (ir cat) before, you know that eventually they pass away. And as sad as that is, you know that, as the old poem says, "'Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all."

There is suffering in loving a dog. But the joy is worth it. And there is joy in raising a child, but also pain. There is pain in being educated, and joy when you graduate. There are lots of ways in which sorrow and happiness get mixed in life.

So I'm just suggesting that to see only the pain is one-sided.

[henry quirk]

I think, down the road, we'll have a more accurate, more clear, understanding of what matter is, and I think we'll find matter, clear on down to the quantum level, isn't spooky or indeterminate or illusory. I think we'll find our intuitive understandings of matter as real, with substance, are true.

Our attention, then, will turn to, as as Flew said, natural laws (as in why is there a set, this set, of rules for how matter works?), (the) impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms, and the conundrum of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings...(arising) from (inanimate) matter.

This question of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings will sit before us, as it doesn't currently do. And we'll find the question is really the question of mind, which is really the question of soul.

Science will take us where scientists fear to tread: the land of why (why is there a universe [this universe]?; why is there animate matter [life]?; why is some animate matter self-directing, self-aware [persons]?).

I think we'll find that we've always had all the evidence we need in our immediate experience to answer these questions and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for atheism and and unforgiving materialism of any variety.

Science and philosophy will make a lovely child together and we'll call it wisdom.

[Immanuel Can]

...another's perspective is part of absolute truth.

Well, THAT another has a perspective cannot be denied. It is "true that they have a perspective." But that fact doesn't imply the perspective is true. For it is often manifestly the case that that perspective is errant, or even false or deluded.

A drug user who develops paranoia has a very strong "perspective." And no doubt it's "real" to him. But he may be totally deluded. The goblins and zombies he's totally convinced are chasing him may be no more than figments of his confused state.

And if you think about education, what does it mean but that the original perspective of the learner is not quite adequate to the truth. She "learns" that while she many have thought one thing, the truth is something less obvious; and so she becomes wiser, better informed and smarter.

Were all "perspectives" equal, the phenomenon of human learning, of education, would be impossible. Each "perspective" each person might have would be just as good as the scientific or factual truth; and so there would be nothing to "learn," no way to improve on that initial "perspective."

And that's manifestly not how things are, I think we both agree.

[RCSaunders]

there is no Dam, there is only consciousness

"there is no dana, only zuul"

-----

"I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." Antony Flew

... and his mind did too!

Did what?

Flew!

[Immanuel Can]

... and his mind did too!

Did what?

Flew!

Cute.

But it point of fact, no sooner had Flew come out as a Deist, but his former friends, the Atheists, attacked him and called him "senile." So this compelled him to write his final book, called "There Is No / A God," which I have here on my desk. It turns out that not only was Flew not out of his mind, but he had very rational and specific reasons for why he had changed his view.

Thomas Nagel inadvertently got the same experience, a few years earlier. While trying to remain an Atheist, Nagel pointed out to his Atheist friends that their progressivism was leading science down a hopeless cul-de-sac; and he was witch-hunted out of the club for so doing. Nagel never intended to leave that club at all, but they drove him out anyway. It seems that, just as the papacy was not favourable to Luther's objections, modernist Atheism, in its own way, is not open to any kind of cognitive reformation. It has its own way of hunting "heretics."

I do recommend the book.

[henry quirk]

... and his mind did too!

Did what?

Flew!

[henry quirk]

Did what?

Flew!

Cute.

But it point of fact, no sooner had Flew come out as a Deist, but his former friends, the Atheists, attacked him and called him "senile." So this compelled him to write his final book, called "There Is No / A God," which I have here on my desk. It turns out that not only was Flew not out of his mind, but he had very rational and specific reasons for why he had changed his view.

Thomas Nagel inadvertently got the same experience, a few years earlier. While trying to remain an Atheist, Nagel pointed out to his Atheist friends that their progressivism was leading science down a hopeless cul-de-sac; and he was witch-hunted out of the club for so doing. Nagel never intended to leave that club at all, but they drove him out anyway. It seems that, just as the papacy was not favourable to Luther's objections, modernist Atheism, in its own way, is not open to any kind of cognitive reformation. It has its own way of hunting "heretics."

I do recommend the book.

[RCSaunders]

Did what?

Flew!

Cute.

Thanks.

But it point of fact, no sooner had Flew come out as a Deist, but his former friends, the Atheists, attacked him and called him "senile." So this compelled him to write his final book, called "There Is No / A God," which I have here on my desk. It turns out that not only was Flew not out of his mind, but he had very rational and specific reasons for why he had changed his view.

Thomas Nagel inadvertently got the same experience, a few years earlier. While trying to remain an Atheist, Nagel pointed out to his Atheist friends that their progressivism was leading science down a hopeless cul-de-sac; and he was witch-hunted out of the club for so doing. Nagel never intended to leave that club at all, but they drove him out anyway. It seems that, just as the papacy was not favourable to Luther's objections, modernist Atheism, in its own way, is not open to any kind of cognitive reformation. It has its own way of hunting "heretics."

I do recommend the book.

Don't take it too seriously. All those who call attention to their, "atheism," seem to hold their beliefs in the same way as theists, as though what is important is having the right ideology, especially since I regard all ideologies, including anti-ideologies, as mistakes.

I won't be reading the book.

[Immanuel Can]

All those who call attention to their, "atheism," seem to hold their beliefs in the same way as theists

Well, some Theists. And there may well be reasonable Atheists around, who just don't know the relevant arguments. The thing is, there really isn't a reason not to know them, with so many great writers working this topic these days.

I won't be reading the book.

That's too bad. It's a good read, whatever your perspective.

[RCSaunders]

All those who call attention to their, "atheism," seem to hold their beliefs in the same way as theists

Well, some Theists. And there may well be reasonable Atheists around, who just don't know the relevant arguments. The thing is, there really isn't a reason not to know them, with so many great writers working this topic these days.

I won't be reading the book.

That's too bad. It's a good read, whatever your perspective.

There is one thing they all, theists and atheists, have in common. That is the belief that it is excruciatingly important that others share their views, and they spend inordinate amounts of time and energy evangelizing, trying to convince others.

I really do not care that they do and certainly support their freedom to do so, but it is a common trait, and I think a mistake. No one has to listen to them or read their books, however.

Whenever I learn about some new idea, philosophy, or ideology, which at my age doesn't happen very often any more, the first thing I notice is if it is simply explained in terms anyone can understand and supported by evidence anyone can examine or is it being promoted and propagandized. Over the years I've learned, the truth doesn't have to be promoted. No advertising campaigns, debates, and programs are required to convince others heavier than air flight is possible, or that the periodic table of the elements is correct, or that lasers are possible, and that anesthetics work. The converse is also usually true. Any idea or ideology that cannot stand on its own but must be promoted with programs and propaganda is probably not true.

[Immanuel Can]

There is one thing they all, theists and atheists, have in common. That is the belief that it is excruciatingly important that others share their views, and they spend inordinate amounts of time and energy evangelizing, trying to convince others.

You mean like writing long opinion papers and referring people to them all the time?

[henry quirk]

There is one thing they all, theists and atheists, have in common. That is the belief that it is excruciatingly important that others share their views, and they spend inordinate amounts of time and energy evangelizing, trying to convince others.

You mean like writing long opinion papers and referring people to them all the time?

[Dubious]

The human being is addicted to it's story, without which it is nothing, it's the most deluded species on the planet. It cannot deal with nothing, which animals are having to do all the time. Which makes dogs smarter than gods.

Whereas humans in the universe are as significant as a falling snowflake, I can't agree that the stories we tell are all detrimental or of no value simply because it's classified as a story. There are all kinds of stories, some having very specific and stringent rules as in all the sciences. Some are pure speculation as in philosophy; others are moralistic, often incorporating some kind of teleology which is merely an extended story of value to some but not in the least necessary to all. Then there are those which are completely misleading, detrimental if not downright evil without even being aware of it.

Stories contain their own ontologies; we are, we create, we expound. It's extremely hard to believe that any truly sentient species anywhere in the universe doesn't operate under the same paradigm, though its stories may be different but likely not too different. The universe created mind in spite of itself devoid of any such purpose. Life anywhere in the cosmos is made of atoms and molecules yet none of them are alive. The inference being a mind wasn't necessary to create any of the minds contained in it.

Also, animals have plenty to contend with, survival and communication within the species being a very complex undertaking. It's the complete opposite of nothing and beyond simply instinct. A mind dealing with nothing is equivalent to perpetually examining a vacuum to see what's there, not unlike trying to extract sunlight out of cucumbers.