Anonymous #1 1d

You’ll get there don’t worry I did too 🫡

4

Anonymous OP 1d

I was there for a time, but I’ve found there’s still a place for a belief system given our knowledge of science and history. If you’re willing to explain your rationale I’d love to have that convo

1

Anonymous #1 1d

I mean yeah I’d say there just no reason to assume anything but a naturalistic universe given that’s all we’ve ever observed. No evidence to the contrary.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Also god concepts are almost always self-refuting and contradictory, only exception is spinozas god but that’s just atheism with spiritual flair honestly

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I see it as moreso explaining what caused the naturalistic universe to exist in the first place. That inherently is information we can’t ever observe though so it’s not like it can ever be tested. Hence why I see it falling into a religion as opposed to science yk?

1

Anonymous OP 1d

There’s also the whole “the universe itself is what we’ve called god” route, but I haven’t done any substantive research into that. I’ve done a little more into the bicameral mind theory

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Movement and change are driving by internal contradiction within a system. There’s no reason to believe anything creates the universe, it arose from natural conditions processing the rapid expansion. There have likely been infinite “universes” prior but there’s no way to tell for certain. Filling in a god is just a god of the gaps fallacy.

1

Anonymous OP 1d

*preceding the rapid expansion

1

Anonymous OP 1d

*driven (fuck can’t spell tonight)

1

Anonymous OP 1d

I mean like it was infinite energy in an infinitesimal space, we don’t know what conditions can create that and I don’t think we can ever really know. Perhaps it is a repetitive big bag/ Big Crunch cycle, but that had to have an origin point no? I understand this falls under the pretense of god of the gaps, but I also think this is a situation that necessitates it.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Like that fallacy originated in the context of refuting godly explanations for things like weather, disease, celestial movements, etc. things that science could inherently understand given enough research. We inherently cannot get any information from prior to the big bang, we can’t even get light from before 380k years after the big bang. It is an area that is impossible to explain scientifically for that reason

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Correct, but that doesn’t mean we should assume the answer is anything but natural. It’s the same as assuming lighting is from Thor because they had no way of determining it was a natural phenomenon at the time.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

What would gods origin be? There’s no reason to assume the universe needs a beginning

1