I wish I could believe again....

[Melomaniacal]

The idea that anything can be infinite is beyond comprehension. No one can truly picture a road without a beginning or end.

I think the idea of G*d makes existence easier to understand. The core idea, I believe, is that everything has a beginning. How that beginning came to be is beyond comprehension , but it's at least easier to believe than the impossible idea that everything is eternal.

I want to research big bang theory now, but I'm thinking the base idea of the big bang theory is comparable to the existence of God. From what I know, it seems that both state that the universe had some beginning. Everything before that is still a mystery (if there was anything before.)

You don't need to picture it. It's more of an idea. Like... 0... or a negative number... or a lot of things in math (imaginary numbers?). I don't completely agree that you can't comprehend infinity. I can definitely comprehend that there are an infinite amount of numbers on a number line, and similarly I can comprehend how the universe always was. It just goes against everything that is tangible. It's intangible, but comprehensible. I understand the theory, basically.
I do kind of agree in the sense that we will never comprehend the beginning, though. But the concept of infinity is comprehensible.

I agree that the idea of god makes existence easier to understand. But easier to understand does not mean that it's correct. Then again, if everything had a beginning, where did god come from? It's the exact same thing. Why is it more ridiculous to believe that the universe was infinite than that god was infinite?

The thing about the big bang theory is that you can just take it a step back. Where did the first mass that exploded come from - or even further; where did the Universe come from?

 

[Insetick]

0 is not imaginary. I can grab a pencil and say there is one pencil in my hand. I can drop it and imagine there being no pencils in my hand. Can you imagine an infinite amount of pencils in your hand? You can say you understand the idea of an infinite number, but no one can truthfully comprehend it.

I do agree that the idea of G*d being infinite can't be comprehended. Doesn't this say, though, that we really can't put all our faith in science either? Science seems to be trying to explain everything before the big bang with questions you brought up, like "where did the universe come from?"

That question seems to only lead two ways:
1. There was just a beginning. (How did it begin? There was a "begin-er?" Might as well believe in G*d then.)
2. The universe is eternal (That's incomprehensible, so there's no way to believe it.)

 

[Wavedash Master]

Also, there's a difference between saying something goes on infinitely and saying there is a infinite amount of something. You can comprehend infinitely gaining money on your hand, but you can't comprehend infinite money on your hand.

 

[Team Giza]

That question seems to only lead two ways:
1. There was just a beginning. (How did it begin? There was a "begin-er?" Might as well believe in G*d then.)
2. The universe is eternal (That's incomprehensible, so there's no way to believe it.)

Both are just as unbelievable. They both have infinite existences involved. Either way, when talking about before the Big Bang you shouldn't say it might as well be god. Heck it might as well be a person in a lab in a few years who will create the universe in order to try to do tests thus creating an infinite loop of our universes. It could be any ridiculous claim. You should say that it is a possibility that it was a god or gods even though you don't have any evidence to support the claim.

 

[Insetick]

Both are just as unbelievable. They both have infinite existences involved. Either way, when talking about before the Big Bang you shouldn't say it might as well be god. Heck it might as well be a person in a lab in a few years who will create the universe in order to try to do tests thus creating an infinite loop of our universes. It could be any ridiculous claim. You should say it might be a god even though you don't have any evidence to support the claim.

Correct. We shouldn't put so much faith into science as to think it can explain existence.

 

[Melomaniacal]

0 is not imaginary. I can grab a pencil and say there is one pencil in my hand. I can drop it and imagine there being no pencils in my hand. Can you imagine an infinite amount of pencils in your hand? You can say you understand the idea of an infinite number, but no one can truthfully comprehend it.

I do agree that the idea of G*d being infinite can't be comprehended. Doesn't this say, though, that we really can't put all our faith in science either? Science seems to be trying to explain everything before the big bang with questions you brought up, like "where did the universe come from?"

That question seems to only lead two ways:
1. There was just a beginning. (How did it begin? There was a "begin-er?" Might as well believe in G*d then.)
2. The universe is eternal (That's incomprehensible, so there's no way to believe it.)

But there aren't zero pencils in your hand. There's nothing in your hand. It's nonexistent.
...okay, zero was a bad example, but the others still stand.
I still feel like the visualization isn't whats important. I understand the concept, although it is not tangible.

No, we can't put all of our faith in science. But science is trying to prove things here, so I find it easier to put faith into it (or faith that it will one day find the explanations). But that's me, other people think differently.
That doesn't mean "SCIENCE SAID BIG BANG THEORY, IT MUST BE TRUE," though. It's just another step towards finding it out. Will we ever find out the beginning? I don't know, but I feel like science will get closer to figuring it out than religion. Again, this is how I feel, and if you chose to believe in a god, that's how you feel. I'm not saying you're wrong for believing that.

1. Why believe in god if we find the beginning (or "begin-er")? If we find the source of everything, then that is the answer. Unless it perfectly matches the bible's description of god, that would completely disprove the idea of god. If we found a true beginning, we would believe in that... since that would be the facts.
But I doubt this is possible. If we did find the source, we would still ask "where did that come from?" So it all goes back to infinity.

2. I've explained this twice before. God is eternal, no? So if god is eternal, it is incomprehensible, and therefore we cannot believe in god, right? Same logic.

Again:

Why is it more ridiculous to believe that the universe was infinite than that god is infinite?

 

[Team Giza]

Correct. We shouldn't put so much faith into science as to think it can explain existence.

Thats not what I said at all. I just said you could claim that as a possibility. Not that it should be taken very seriously. The methods of science are the best way I know of to seek the truth.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

But the universe isn't infinite under the Big Bang theory. The universe comes into existence around ~13.7 billion years ago from a singularity to what it is today. We know (for the most part, but research is still being into this part) what happened 10^-37 seconds after it happened, but we don't know what happened before it.

Just needed to clear that up.

 

[Melomaniacal]

But the universe isn't infinite under the Big Bang theory. The universe comes into existence around ~13.7 billion years ago from a singularity to what it is today. We know (for the most part, but research is still being into this part) what happened 10^-37 seconds after it happened, but we don't know what happened before it.

Just needed to clear that up.

Well, first that's just a theory. Second, where did that come from?

It's a never-ending question.

 

[Team Giza]

But the universe isn't infinite under the Big Bang theory. The universe comes into existence around ~13.7 billion years ago from a singularity to what it is today. We know (for the most part, but research is still being into this part) what happened 10^-37 seconds after it happened, but we don't know what happened before it.

Depends on how you want to define universe. The current state of the expanding universe started ~13.7 billion years ago.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

So is cell theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, need I go further?

That little bit came from here.

 

[Insetick]

I'm okay with Big Bang theory establishing a starting point of existence. What I don't like is speculative science that asks "Why" and "How" the universe began, because those are the same questions that religions attempt to answer.

My friend thinks that our universe came to being from the 4th dimension. But there's no reason why I should believe in something beyond anyone's comprehension. Melomaniacal, if you think it's enough just to understand the idea behind something you can't comprehend, you could believe any speculative theory.

Ultimately, I think the idea of G*d and the Big Bang theory do end up in the same position: There must have been a beginning, nothing more.

 

[TigerWoods]

My view on death and all:

If you think about it, we ARE ancient and everlasting beings. The molecules that constitute our bodies have existed for eons upon eons, and cannot be destroyed according to the law of the conservation of matter.

When we die our bodies degrade back and recycle into the Earth, most likely nurturing other life forms and essentially becoming part of them.

We carry the encoded instructions of our ancestors. We are the sum of the collective tweaks, changes, and successes of our lineage. We have the ability to contribute to the gene pool, as well as physically impact others. Pretty amazing, isn't it?

I'm not sure what lies ahead after death. That is for all of us to find out when we die. If there is nothingness, then so be it. I hate cliche's... but it's better to have gained it and lost it, than to never have gained it all. Life is a beautiful thing, and if it blooms once, might as well make the most out of looking at it.

 

[Insetick]

I realize I was very off-topic.

On the topic of death, I think it's best to take a stoic view. Think of it this way: why is death so scary? Once you die, you don't exist, so you can't say, "dam, this sucks," right? Know that being dead can't hurt you or make you unhappy.

A view on nonexistence: why be afraid of nonexistence? Before you were born, you didn't exist, but you don't complain about that, do you? Nonexistence shouldn't bother you.

Maybe it's not nonexistence that worries you. If you're like me, you're worried that you won't be happy when you die. In that case, think about your current condition. Would you be happier if you worried constantly about death? Of course not! Everyone dies eventually. If it's inevitable and out of your control, why worry about it?

By nature, being dead doesn't hurt you. So why let it?

 

[Team Giza]

The moments approaching death can be something to fear though. Knowing that you will no longer be able to help all of the loved ones around you anymore can be a scary thought. Sure it would all be over soon but those last moments could be torturous.

 

[PhoenixoKaZe]

The moments approaching death can be something to fear though. Knowing that you will no longer be able to help all of the loved ones around you anymore is a scary though. Sure it would all be over soon but those last moments could be torturous.

making living life and belief in a certain religion of our choosing to be a worthwhile alternative

 

[Team Giza]

making living life and belief in a certain religion of our choosing to be a worthwhile alternative

Even if you had faith in a religion it doesn't mean you don't have to go through this same experience. Unless you believe you are able to come back as ghosts and help your loved ones out in the same way you've been helping them during your life. But I don't think many people believe that.

 

[Insetick]

The moments approaching death can be something to fear though. Knowing that you will no longer be able to help all of the loved ones around you anymore is a scary though. Sure it would all be over soon but those last moments could be torturous.

For all we know, I could die in the next two minutes. We can never be sure exactly when we will die, but why should we let that doubt overshadow our lives?

If you think it's okay to worry about death when you're about to die, then the mystery over when we die basically means that we can constantly live like we're in our final moments.

Again, death is not in your control. So why worry about it? The things you have influence over are your life and thoughts, so take advantage of that. Redirect your fear of death into a will to live a better life.

 

[Team Giza]

For all we know, I could die in the next two minutes. We can never be sure exactly when we will die, but why should we let that doubt overshadow our lives?

I never said it was rational, but some people allow such thing to rule over life decisions.

edit: Upon rereading your post I can't tell if your talking about fearing this type of situation or fearing death in general...

 

[Eyada]

As for Aquinas (and the related subject of a "begin-er"), while I disagree with the vast majority of his ideas, the man was quite brilliant and he definitely earned his place as one of the most well-known philosophers. Summa Theologica, written by Aquinas, is famous for the "Five Ways" in which God can be shown to exist. One of them is the idea of a "begin-er" that has been discussed in this thread. Needless to say, the "Five Ways" are not without (a lot of) criticism, and they are not universally accepted.

As for the original topic of this thread:

If you are looking for happiness or meaning in life now that you've lost religion, I suggest philosophy. Religion and philosophy have similar goals, but different methodologies. Religion seeks to provide truth and understanding, but it accomplishes it by saying "Here are the answers. Do not question them. Ever. Just take our word for it." Philosophy also seeks truth and understanding, but it does so in a valid, non-fallacious fashion --namely, by actually thinking about stuff and asking questions to try to discern valid answers.

If you felt comfort and peace from the answers religion provided (even though it never explained or justified any of the answers, of course), philosophy will certainly be able to provide the same peace, and more. As this blog shows, asking questions about troubling topics can lead to enlightening answers that provide comfort and understanding; philosophy is all over asking questions about troubling topics, and it has a boatload of comforting and fulfilling ideas available. (And some not-so-comforting ones as well, but those are just bumps along the path to truth.)

Philosophy seeks truth, and as a result brings about peace of mind; which is what you seem to lack. Fear of dying and the plausibility of an afterlife, morality, knowledge, purpose, truth, beauty, freedom, individuality, the idea of eternity and the plausibility of an infinite universe, happiness, the meaning of life, and many more --any worthwhile topic you can think of has probably been tackled by philosophers, and is still probably being actively discussed today. If you want answers to those questions, philosophy provides them.

 

[john!]

Philosophy and religion aren't mutually exclusive. I don't know where you got that idea...

Also, fear of death can be a good thing. It can cause you to hesitate and be cautious in life-threatening situations, which can make you live longer. Not only humans, but all animals fear death for this reason.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I'm okay with Big Bang theory establishing a starting point of existence. What I don't like is speculative science that asks "Why" and "How" the universe began, because those are the same questions that religions attempt to answer.

My friend thinks that our universe came to being from the 4th dimension. But there's no reason why I should believe in something beyond anyone's comprehension. Melomaniacal, if you think it's enough just to understand the idea behind something you can't comprehend, you could believe any speculative theory.

Ultimately, I think the idea of G*d and the Big Bang theory do end up in the same position: There must have been a beginning, nothing more.

You totally dodged my question three times now.
And why can't I comprehend that the universe could have existed infinitely? Because I can't put an image to it? That's all I'm getting out of what you're saying, and I don't think that the image is what's important.

That is all.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

yeah I knew it. I hate people like you because you've been almost brainwashed to the point where you think that someone being different from you means their wrong. It's actually pretty similar to Hitler. Do you yourself have any reason to hate homosexuals? Have they done anything to you? Or is it because you preach the bible around and say that god hates homosexuals?

Similar to racism, but try to understand this: I have more friends w/ a race that isn't even my own.

I hate dictatorship and communism. I wouldn't force people to eat "blank" since almost everyone on Earth has to follow a different diet for the sake of their health. I'm not trying to make people think like me, cause I suck.

I'm goin' by the fact that homosexuality isn't natural. There wouldn't be a name for guy and guy and/or girl on girl action if it was as the same as guy on girl.
I wouldn't garuntee ANY homosexuals to go to Heaven. You probably don't even believe in such a place, lol.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I'm goin' by the fact that homosexuality isn't natural.

Depends on what you mean by "natural." Do you mean "exists/can be found in nature"? If so, then homosexuality can indeed be natural. It is found in different species of animals as well. Do you mean "normal"? If so, then that's your own perspective. Perhaps homosexuality isn't normal because it's less common, but that doesn't make it wrong.

There wouldn't be a name for guy and guy and/or girl on girl action if it was as the same as guy on girl.

I don't even get what you're trying to say here.

I wouldn't garuntee ANY homosexuals to go to Heaven. You probably don't even believe in such a place, lol.

If you're going off the bible, homosexuals do not go to heaven.



Sorry for going so off topic.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

To mature for your own good...?
Why is there a name for a relationship w/ the same sex?

People obviously don't think the same way. This makes countless things undebatable.
This may be off topic too, but don't make assumptions w/ people when you don't know their background, Logan.

 

[Jin Kazama]

There is homosexual and heterosexual. Both have names. Homosexual is for gays, hetero is for straight.

 

[Melomaniacal]

To mature for your own good...?
Why is there a name for a relationship w/ the same sex?

People obviously don't think the same way. This makes countless things undebatable.
This may be off topic too, but don't make assumptions w/ people when you don't know their background, Logan.

To mature for my own good? I lol'd. No, your grammar made it extremely difficult to understand what point you were trying to make.
Either way, that's a horrendous argument. There's a different term for it because it is different. Homo means "the same." Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Hetero means "different." Heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite (different) sex. There is a name for these relationships so that we can differentiate them in conversation without having to say "a guy who is attracted to the same sex" every time. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's like saying females are dumb because "why would they have a different name for people without wieners?"

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

There is homosexual and heterosexual. Both have names. Homosexual is for gays, hetero is for straight.

In that case, there's no point in arguing the topic unless Logan wants to come up and have a fit with me.

Edit:@Melo. We teenagers speak an alternative language that's 70% similar to English. I guess you have a point, but my opinion still stands.

 

[Melomaniacal]

In that case, there's no point in arguing the topic unless Logan wants to come up and have a fit with me.

Edit:@Melo. We teenagers speak an alternative language that's 70% similar to English. I guess you have a point, but my opinion still stands.

I don't get your opinion. Are you using the fact that there is a different term to define people who are attracted to the same sex as evidence that homosexuality is wrong?

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

I don't get your opinion. Are you using the fact that there is a different term to define people who are attracted to the same sex as evidence that homosexuality is wrong?

That makes absolutely no sense.

Not the slightest bit. Look closely, I knew nothing about what a male and female relationship was called. That deletes my comment in which I found it odd with gays or lesbians having a specific name. (probably bad grammar).

I can't argue here, cause there's nothing about relationships that we can agree on.

Edit: @mountain. Have you gotten the info/advice that you've wanted?

 

[mountain_tiger]

How did this topic go from me being unsure about spirituality to people arguing about homosexuality? I never even mentioned it....

 

[TP]

If I ever meet you in real life, I owe you a hug.

You just reminded me of what I used to think before I feared death. (Then I forgot what I used to believe in to keep me calm.)

Seriously, words can't even begin to explain how thankful I am you said that.

This just brightened my day.

 

[Reaver197]

How did this topic go from me being unsure about spirituality to people arguing about homosexuality? I never even mentioned it....

It's one of the mysteries of life.

However, should one exchange the pursuit of knowledge and truth for the feeling of safety and comfort?

 

[TigerWoods]

See how my Commercial Science blog went from Lysol to Genocide.

It's human nature... lol

 

[El Nino]

I didn't read any of the comments.

My suggestion based on the OP: Evidence is one of the things that science is based on, and science is really just a methodology, nothing more. That method works for a lot of things, but it doesn't work for everything. The method won't tell you how to interpret art; it won't teach you musical appreciation, or what the experience of seeing red is like if you can't see red. The method doesn't apply to philosophy, and it doesn't apply to political theory either.

My point is that there are a lot of things that people do and experience that aren't grounded in proofs. Sometimes, it doesn't matter how you got there, only that you are there.

So, when you look at things spiritually, I think you can do what works for you. There's this thing called figurative language, and it involves things like metaphors. There's knowledge and evidence, and then there's interpretation. Evidence is evidence, but none of it means anything until you interpret it. The methodology won't teach you how. When it comes to spirituality, you can interpret things on your own terms.

 

[Team Giza]

Hindu creation says that the world is on the back of a turtle, but it's not as if all the world's Hindu practitioners suddenly stopped believing when satellite photos revealed that the world is not, in fact, situated on the back of a turtle. There's this thing called figurative language, and it involves things like metaphors.

Hindu creation is based around a god trinity with Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva. The earth is not placed upon the back of a turtle. However that myth was held by a native american group. You have problem just confused them.

 

[El Nino]

Yeah, sorry. My teachers always used "Indian" to refer to Native American. It threw me off until I got older. I hope that term isn't used that way in U.S. schools anymore.

 

[SuSa]

No, we still do. It's just far more common to know that Indian refers to both.

 

[El Nino]

That's funny. It's needlessly confusing though. A European explorer makes a mistake, and we honor it by keeping it alive. American tradition, I guess.

 

[SuSa]

We could be more precise and start speaking of each individual tribe.

But good luck with that.......