re: The size of the observable universe is 93 billion light years in diameter

quote:

---

Check out Stephen Wolfram's research into Cellular Automata - he shows that certain basic rules can give rise to extremely complex structures. I am very much unsure of if I believe in a creator / higher power or not, or just the power of infinity to stumble into the right preconditions to give rise to the universe, but his research is pretty interesting to look into on its own.

---

Every theory I see starts with some kind of of pre-conditions. I don't care if you have infinity to wait, if nothing is there to cause the conditions required to generate spontaneous matter and anti-matter, then nothing will happen...Ever.

Something or someone had to give law and order and the conditions required for the universe's expansion to occur, whether that be radiation/energy or whatever caused the first particles to exist.

Maybe humans are simple-minded and get a lot of things wrong about God and religion, but in my opinion, believing that everything started by accident from a singularity when there was no existence of time or order (laws of physics) takes a whole lot more faith than believing that something or someone created the building blocks or conditions required for the universe to expand.

quote:

---

I had taco bell and black coffee for breakfast.

---

I do that too. WFH. Roll up to Taco Bell at 9 and order lunch

quote:

---

IMO, until there's solid proof of supernatural entities, it's naive to use them as an explanation for anything.

---

Isn't that the exact basis/concept of faith, a key tenet of most deity-centric religion?

Well, you seem to throw in a good bit of stereotype in that, and while you may be spot on in some instances, I think it's just too nuanced to use a broad brush. IMO, it's too many different things to too many people, even while coexisting under the same overall umbrella.

One nuanced example is the concept of Higher Power within the world of, say, Alcoholics Anonymous. While there are plenty of people who consider their higher power to be Jesus or God in general, same as non-AA "practitioners," the AA member will apply the concept of the higher power in a somewhat different way.

Heck, I've got no issue with your view of it. It is after all one of the debated subjects that will ever exist, through the ages.

quote:

---

In the grand scheme of things, nothing we do will amount to anything that matters.

---

Helping someone in need is all you, as a minuscule grain of micro-sand in the grand scheme of the universe, can do to make the world a better place..

quote:

---

All of the energy that exists in the universe has always existed

---

But there had to be some starting point, right? How can it always have existed? There has to be a beginning at some point. Rhetorical questions that I'm sure we'd all love to have the answer to.

I agree

But if we’re debating philosophy one can just as easily say “who created the creator” and so forth

We will never have definite answers and that to me makes this life beautiful

quote:

---

In the grand scheme of things, nothing we do will amount to anything that matters.

---

Well at least a select few of us can understand this stuff. And this wasn't my college major so I do not understand it.

quote:

---

The fact that you view man's attribution of the unknown to a deity as a problem evidences your bias, and therein lies the real problem.

---

The problem with accepting the supernatural into scientific circles is, where we do we draw the line? How do we differentiate between one supernatural cause and another? If the Christian God is an acceptable answer for Mystery A, then why can't any other supernatural entity be acceptable for Mystery B? If all one needs for a legitimate catalyst is an invisible, incorporeal being that can be neither detected nor falsified, that opens quite a few doors.

Maybe they should teach the Gremlin Theory of Engine Failure to mechanics. Why not? Can we prove gremlins don't exist? Can we prove they are not responsible for fricking up a few engines here and there?

If deities (for which there is zero hard evidence) are admissible, why not all the other craziness? You can't show me a deity anymore than I can show you a gremlin, a ghost, an alien, Bigfoot, or whatever.

quote:

---

No disrespect to your point of view but don't let bias stop you from exploring all possibilities.

---

All possibilities? There's pretty much no such thing as an impossibility if unverified supernatural causes can be used at any time. I mean, if John Doe is on trial for murder and says Satan showed up at the crime scene and framed him by hacking Mrs. Smith into a hundred pieces right in front of him, it's possible, right? Should that be a valid defense in a court of law? What would happen to the legal system if John Doe got off by blaming Satan? Then everyone else in prison is going to have their lawyers thinking of creative ways to blame Satan too. Hell, maybe Satan did frame him, but without any proof that a being like Satan exists it would turn the legal system into a joke. "Sorry, officer. I didn't mean to drive 100. Damn Satan was holding my foot down."

It just doesn't work, just like God doesn't work in science. That's not to say we know with 100% certainty that no supernatural entity (be it God or whatever) has never intervened in the material world, but until it's proven beyond all doubt that any such entities exist, strict naturalism is the only way to go. And I think that's further reinforced by the fact that countless times throughout history supernatural explanations submitted out of ignorance have been overturned as science has progressed.

We are one with all and all is with one