Let's Get Rid Of All Religions! good idea?

[Waldo]

7 hours ago, Dromedary said:

It could as it has also been theorised that it could also be cyclic in nature that's one of the reasons I stated it may have always existed, although in different forms. From big bang to big crunch and back again.

This would explain why this instance of the universe in this time frame exists.

 

However, how to explain why this repeating infinity of universes / expand contract repeat phenomenon exists at all?

 

It’s kinda kicking the problem down the road, if that makes sense…

 

Such a phenomenon would I think, necessitate an infinite number of universes previous to this one, and an infinite number to come. There would have been an infinite number of earths, and each person, and an infinite number of every possible variation of a human being and all possible other life forms.

 

Unless of course, each universe instance was identical, no randomness, same initial configuration etc. Does not quite seem plausible somehow.

 

Not that that negates the possibility the theory is a correct one, just thought it an interesting notion! 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Waldo

[Dromedary]

7 hours ago, Waldo said:

This would explain why this instance of the universe in this time frame exists.

 

However, how to explain why this repeating infinity of universes / expand contract repeat phenomenon exists at all?

 

It’s kinda kicking the problem down the road, if that makes sense…

Perfect sense as many paradoxes exit and remain unexplained so far, and that's why I said I doubt if we will ever know for sure given the time frame involved.

 

The newly revamped LHC may help us to understand more but even then there is a limit.

 

7 hours ago, Waldo said:

Such a phenomenon would I think, necessitate an infinite number of universes previous to this one, and an infinite number to come. There would have been an infinite number of earths, and each person, and an infinite number of every possible variation of a human being and all possible other life forms.

That is a fairly common theme in science fiction stories and films and as we already know science fiction sometimes come true.

 

7 hours ago, Waldo said:

Unless of course, each universe instance was identical, no randomness, same initial configuration etc. Does not quite seem plausible somehow.

 

Not that that negates the possibility the theory is a correct one, just thought it an interesting notion! 

Yep, food for thought.

[Baz1]

17 hours ago, Dromedary said:

Yes but it may have also existed before this present formation. The Big Bang theory which we rely on to describe its formation from a singularity is just one version of how it may have formed but some of the science behind it may not be 100% correct. In that, we are still at the learning stage and at the moment it is a best guess scenario given what we know so far.

 

It could as it has also been theorised that it could also be cyclic in nature that's one of the reasons I stated it may have always existed, although in different forms. From big bang to big crunch and back again. It's also been theorised that this universe we are in may not be the only one. Just like the existence of God I doubt we will ever know for sure.

 

Sorry you have lost me with that one?

I meant uncreated first cause.

 

Premise would be:

 

1.The universe is finite.

 

2.Finite things could have come from nothing, created themselves, been ultimately created by something created, or been created by something uncreated.

 

3.They could not have come from nothing, created themselves, or have been ultimately created by something created.

 

4.Therefore, they were created by something uncreated.

[Dromedary]

3 hours ago, Baz1 said:

I meant uncreated first cause.

 

Premise would be:

 

1.The universe is finite.

 

2.Finite things could have come from nothing, created themselves, been ultimately created by something created, or been created by something uncreated.

 

3.They could not have come from nothing, created themselves, or have been ultimately created by something created.

 

4.Therefore, they were created by something uncreated.

Only the observable universe is finite because that is as far back as we can approximately measure given the data we have.

 

Here is a good take on it by Professor Brian Cox.

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

1 hour ago, Baz1 said:

I meant uncreated first cause.

 

Premise would be:

 

1.The universe is finite.

 

2.Finite things could have come from nothing, created themselves, been ultimately created by something created, or been created by something uncreated.

 

3.They could not have come from nothing, created themselves, or have been ultimately created by something created.

 

4.Therefore, they were created by something uncreated.

Philosophical constructs like 'First Cause' is one of the many attempts by theists to give their god a rol

It has no basis in mathematics or physics.

 

 

[trastrick]

3 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

In case anybody is interested (more interested than I am, to be honest), the pros and cons of this argument are outlined here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

 

and explored in great detail here:

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

 

My feelings are (1) the argument will seem convincing to people who already "believe in God", but not to many other people, (2) this uncreated creator is nothing like 'God' as understood by most of the faithful, just as a Big Bang followed by several billion years of physics, chemistry and evolution is nothing like the creation story in the Bible (which is still taken literally by about 40% of people in the USA, for instance).

Just for the record, some 2 and a half billion of our Muslim friends, also believe in  Adam and Eve, and reject the idea that we evolved from lesser stock, 

 

Why would you just pick on the U.S.?

 

 

[Waldo]

9 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

In case anybody is interested (more interested than I am, to be honest), the pros and cons of this argument are outlined here:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

 

and explored in great detail here:

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

 

My feelings are (1) the argument will seem convincing to people who already "believe in God", but not to many other people, (2) this uncreated creator is nothing like 'God' as understood by most of the faithful, just as a Big Bang followed by several billion years of physics, chemistry and evolution is nothing like the creation story in the Bible (which is still taken literally by about 40% of people in the USA, for instance).

People often have a tendency to believe in things, primarily because they bring them some level of psychological comfort. They look for and notice things that support their comforting belief, and ignore things that don’t. We are experts at self deception.

 

I wonder how many religious people factor in this dynamic (or are even aware of it) when formulating their beliefs.

 

 

[Tipstaff]

As kids, we used to attend Sunday school, Christian festivals and parades. You hardly see any of them now, unless you live in a traditional town or village. The Christian churches and congregations in the United Kingdom are slowly becoming more invisible. I know of at least 4 churches near me that have closed altogether and one remains derelict. I don’t think religion in general,  or practicing and living by your faith or belief is a bad thing or irrelevant. I think Christianity in the UK has become somewhat diluted and seems these days to be almost directionless.  However,  I think it would be a nonsense, draconian, dangerous  and impossible to even try to rid the world of all religions and faiths.