There are no supernatural beings. The material universe is the only thing that exists. Science provides the only reliable source of knowledge about this universe. We only live this life - there is no after-life, and no such thing as reincarnation. Human beings can live ethical and fulfilling lives without religious beliefs. Human beings derive their moral code from the lessons of history, personal experience, and thought
In the 3rd case, no one has ever proved how the universe was created, not even science. In fact, it is impossible to prove because of the singularity of the t=0 problem (when time =0). It was/is an non-observable fact. The big bang is only a theory, impossible to prove, as is admitted by scientists. Big Bang is a model because it best fits the collected data. To make my point the best way, I'll point out what a scientist did many years ago. His name was Erwin Schrodinger (Nobel prize in 1933) He came up with a famous paradox, called the Cat Paradox. Just read the last paragraph if you don't want to read the whole thing. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...nger-erwin-google-doodle-cat-paradox-science/ Because of this singularity, and because it was impossible to observe, we do NOT know how the universe was created (from science) I know with great certainly, but I already know what you're thinking I'm going to say, so I won't. But I hope we can still be friends and have friendly conversations, even though we may not agree.
Since science is basically theoretical with very few absolutes, Hugh's illustration makes complete sense. Schrodinger's illustration makes the understanding of these facts simpler that what most scientists allow. The wave particles have been illustrated before and since they are not necessarily stable, to pin down at what point the universe may or may not have been begun is impossible. I've always believed it simply was there and underwent changes due to the actions of the many suns' behaviors. Also there seems to be a great deal of motion as illustrated by Hubble in space and who know just exactly what has been going on forever? Taking into account the we are what the stars are made of, I can disagree with Lon's theory, but that's what makes the world go round.
I will disagree with #4. At our core is energy. energy cannot be destroyed. When we die our kernal of energy is released to the universe.
You are so right, Peter. Kinetic energy, of which we are comprised cannot either be created nor destroyed.
Basically, what you believe, is what you have reasoned out life to be, @Lon Tanner . The very act of thought itself proves that something more than just a physical body exists. We are able to reason through things in our brain, and we use logic (which involves being able to use the thought process) , in order to come to our conclusions. You say that morals come from lessons, but there are at least as many “lessons” of people being immoral and profiting from it, as there are people who were not immoral, and actually suffered from just being honest with other people. The thought of prison does not always stop a person from killing another human being. Here is what CS Lewis, the famous writer , said about atheism, and he calls it irrational to think that way. A small quote from the article, but please take the time to read the whole article before you just discard his beliefs. “Lewis calls this “The Self Contradiction of the Naturalist.” Though he denies the existence of anything outside the world of physical cause and effect, the atheist depends upon a process of reasoning that cannot exist inside it. Since proving something requires reason and logic, the atheist must depend on a principle which he denies in order to make his point.” https://www.circeinstitute.org/blog/atheism-irrational-argued-cs-lewis
Wife and I totally believe in God and what he has done for us. From some of the things that my wife and I have been thru, before we met and married, ONLY God could have got us thru those things. Our faith and belief is totally with God!
"since I haven’t seen it doesn’t exist. (uh, that rationale works for atheists so there’s no need to call me on it)." This is exactly why I never could think of myself as an atheist. An atheist "knows" what he can't possibly know. For a person without definite religious beliefs, adopting an agnostic position is much more sensible. In my case there are many things I think are probably true, but there is no way, to my mind, that I can "know" that they are true. I just don't have enough information.
In relation to Ivanka Trump advertising as an employee of the White House, you have that information and you have the truth. She isn’t a paid employee of the Fed nor of the President himself. As far as your statement regarding religion, the premise of reality is dependent upon what you may or may not accept as being real and the proofs you need to make that decision. In fact, all decisions of reality, no matter what the subject may be are yours to make based on whatever evidence is acceptable to you. Note: Huxley’s 19th century word “agnostic” is more often than not applied to all things rather than those things that are clearly material as the person who coined it intended it to be. In a world where the only evidence of fact are those things that are material, the quantum or even microcosmic worlds are left without the definition of being real or unreal making the very word “agnostic” unacceptable.
I thought the Ivanka Trump issue was trivial and wasn't concerned with it. As far as your just recent statements following the Ivanka comment, I'm either not understanding you, or, if I am, I disagree with them - I don't know quite which is true. I don't believe that my personal decisions about reality alter or create that reality. Are you implying that they.do?. "In fact, all decisions of reality, no matter what the subject may be are yours to make based on whatever evidence is acceptable to you." I am clueless as to your meaning here. To me, evidence is evidence..I don't discount it because it conflicts with my worldview. If you have the patience, try to clarify what you're saying. I'm willing to be educated.
All evidence, even that which is deemed as empirical is subject to the beholder’s acceptance of that evidence. A prime example might be the recent problems of gender identification. If a man says he’s a girl and you accept his reasoning even to the point of barring empirical data, then to you, he’s a girl. I accept the data regarding the existence of a supreme and eternal entity we call God. I have enough material and non-material evidence to satisfy My Own very strict needs in order to assess the whole of the matter.....for me. I accept and in some ways create my own realities which is exactly the way it is for everyone. Ya know, everything you look at, hear, smell, taste and see is different than it is for me. You describe a tree as being green and you’d be right but it’s your green, not mine. My green can be slightly different which is as it is for all humans. It’s all a matter of interpretation derived from past learning experiences on what exactly constitutes our own realities.