The Birth of Religion??

The universe would not be teeming with life if we are in a constant cycle of expansion and contraction. The contraction to a singularity would destroy any life, and the cycle would begin with anew with a new big bang. And according to what we know of the physical universe today, instellar travel is not really possible. We might someday over come it, but it also might be an insurrmountable task to go to another extra-solar planet. And 4 billion years may very well be a fast pace to develop advanced intelligent life in this expansion cycle. I don’t think the absense of evidence of advanced life forms in anyway detracts from my hypothesis.

“I consider it valid. I was suggesting something about ignoring anomalies and neither addressing the definition to include this new subset…nor offering explanation for the anomaly as outside current definition. We can observe the problem in the causal chain. “

I see the point you are making, but the anomaly you are talking about is about the very origins of reality, not the laws within reality. To stick with the oranges analogy, say you have a crate of oranges (no purple ones). All the oranges have specific characteristics. All of them have peels, seeds, juice, pulp, etc… These are the physical laws of the oranges within crate. Any inspection of the oranges reveals that none fall outside of the laws of the crate. Now we can ask, who created the crate itself? How was it created? What is the nature of the crate maker? The answers to these questions fall completely outside the laws of the crate, and you cannot use those laws to explain the crate or its origins.

“But wasn’t matter created in the Big Bang? Isn’t it destroyed when we detonate nuclear bombs? If spacetime is infinite… then the big bang must have matriculated into it at a given point. Matter is a state of energy… it isn’t necessarily constant. “

Who knows when matter was created (if it ever was)? I have always felt that the big bang was not the when matter was created. I think it is the singularity of all matter that reaches critical mass and explodes and expands, and then eventually reaches a point where it begins to contract again until it is back to a singularity again. An infinite cycle. I agree that matter isn’t constant, but it is finite. We cannot create more matter.

“Your argument in a nutshell…”why we cant just accept that this special occurrence simply happened and be satisfied with it as a one off property of nature.” “

Not really. I have no idea if it is special, or if it is occuring constantly and creating different realities all the time. My point is just that we cannot use the laws inside nature to define things that are clearly outside nature.

“If reality requires no explanation then we must assume it is the preternatural default in defiance of the laws in and of itself.”

Why must we assume that? “reality” is really a philisophical concept. Nature is a scientific concept. I think trying to reconcile the two is futile. If you want to talk about reality in scientific terms, I would call it is space and time.

“If reality is without cause… why should we not assume anything of reality can exist without cause?”

Whether space and time (S&T) is infiniate, or had a causal origin from something outside of S&T, does not change the physical laws within S&T. Nothing has ever been observed within S&T that breaks those physical laws. Then there is only one question, and it is unanswerable, is S&T infinite?

The bottom line is whether the existence of “reality” is causal or acausal has no bearing in the physical laws within that “reality”.

At least that is my take.

Jimahl:

“Your analogy of oranges is not really a valid one. It is… well, apples and oranges…”

I do expect reimbursement for this inevitable one liner… I take debit. Purple Apples?… but I did sort of hang that one right in the sweet spot.

“Purple oranges is something we can see, observe, inspect , and test. We can not do that with things outside of reality. At least not as far as we know today.”

I consider it valid. I was suggesting something about ignoring anomalies and neither addressing the definition to include this new subset…nor offering explanation for the anomaly as outside current definition. We can observe the problem in the causal chain.

“Matter, as far we know, is finite. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed, there must be a finite amount of matter. But the existence of matter may be infinite, or it may have emerged at the time when space and time emerged, if it actaully did. But I still see no paradox between the concept of an infinite space and time and physical causality as we undertand it in our universe.”

But wasn’t matter created in the Big Bang? Isn’t it destroyed when we detonate nuclear bombs? If spacetime is infinite… then the big bang must have matriculated into it at a given point. Matter is a state of energy… it isn’t necessarily constant.

Even if matter were part and parcel with spacetime… we still observe an advance in cause and effect. This is the basis for determinism and chaos theory… the butterfly effect? Why should we suspend cause and effect at one proposed point? Why is it not special pleading to suggest that we should?

Your argument in a nutshell…”why we cant just accept that this special occurrence simply happened and be satisfied with it as a one off property of nature.”

Nature has groomed my mind so that it starts niggling when something this coincidental is suggested. It defies natural logic.

Have a good weekend yourself… Jimahl. Lay off the sauce! I’m not implying anything.

What I think, which is based on my very limited knowledge, is that spacetime is infinite. There is no beginning and no end. I don’t see that as an exception to the causal chain, I looked at it as part of the physical laws within our reality. You can look at it as an exception, but I see it as in my orange crate analogy. The crate may have always existed, or it may have been created. Neither contradicts the physical laws of the oranges.

There is a problem with reality… it requires an explanation. The problem is that we cannot explain it… beyond this past experience has shown us that a causal chain is also required to explain. We can explain up until a certain point… but then come unto a causal chasm we cannot circumnavigate. I have argued numerous times at FA why Ockham’s razor being asserted here is not valid. Others disagree… but all have to agree that currently existence has no explanation in science.

Will it ever?… some say so… but I think that we will have to venture into strange fields of subjective reality to do so… and that will be a radical departure from where most atheists tend to gather on the problem. I think that we will be left to question however.

Religion is offered to answer the unanswered question… Does the validity of the religion invalidate the question?

Since you referred to ‘god’, I’m going to assume you are referring to monotheism and not animism or other earth religions.

Well, we actually pretty much know how this happened, and it’s outlined in much greater detail in “The History of God”. In a nutshell, it has to do with agriculture. At the dawn of agriculture, the ancients found a need to know the seasons for planting. General weather patterns are not a good enough indicator, because a late freeze is quite common and was enough to kill an entire society. They noticed that they could count the phases of the moon. This was ok, but not very good, since the years are not precisely aligned with phases of the moon.

So, they noticed also that the position of the sun against the backdrop of stars (at dawn or dusk) was an excellent indicator of time of year. Since they were used to the using lunar phases (with approximately 12 cycles in a year), they divided the year long cycle of stars up into 12 segments, and made stories up about those patterns. So one group becomes a bull, even though it really doesn’t look anything like a bull. Another becomes the ‘water bearer’ even though it looks nothing like that, because it’s associated with a rainy season, and so on.

These stories were then causally associated with the seasons. Instead of just being a way to remember the rainy season, the water bearer (Aquarius) was associated with causing it.

So, the first pantheon of 12 gods was born. Over time, more gods were added to account for the 7 ‘nonfixed’ celestial objects (sun, moon, mercury, venus, mars, saturn, jupiter), and yet more gods added as the patrons of nearly everything imaginable.

Eventually, as the idea that these gods actually existed was entrenched, the simple logic of “well, who is the strongest god” came about. This resulted in the consolidation of gods until we end up with the modern singular creator god.

captainassassin:

I am not suggesting that I nor anyone can provide explanation… only that we can notice the problem. Like a bump on a newly sanded table… when we advance our hands over the surface we notice it.. the imperfection… it can’t go unnoticed… the same is true with reality. We notice that each effect has a cause… but when taken to its extreme… the impossibility of this law becomes evident. This is all that I am suggesting. Dismissing the ultimate cause as a natural law of reality that is no longer observable is as hypocritical as any explanation I offer.

“I don’t think its without cause… I think the cause is simply beyond human comprehension… meaning beyond any structured process of human thought; deduction, logic, etc.”

I agree… but I still imagine. I consider human ingenuity… creativity… and imagination the godlike attributes. These are our highest qualities and if ever the causal chasm could be breached… it will be only by our imaginations.

“People need explanations… people have imaginations…”

Concise… I tend to harangue and develop ideas until they become thoroughly incomprehensible.

Typo… I meant ‘unnatural’

There’s also the issue of energy being a ‘state of matter’ …so the previously mentioned atomic explosion be more accurately, a ‘conversion’ of mattter from its physical state (I guess) to an energy state.

If reality requires no explanation then we must assume it is the preternatural default in defiance of the laws in and of itself… a supernatural property of something we would only describe as the definition of natural. There is obviously still a problem.

The explanation is no more required, than your resulting assumption lacking requirement. My statement is referring to individual views of the subject. I do not REQUIRE an explanation of the origin of the universe. There are many people like me. In contrast, there are many people who want an explanation (be it right or wrong). Remember, the validity of these various ‘explanations’ are limited to a process of thought that exists within our human minds, within our universe and reality. How valid can they be when explaining that which is was before/outside the existence of our universe and reality?

If reality is without cause… why should we not assume anything of reality can exist without cause? Deductive logic would be baseless. No cause could necessarily be assigned to a given conclusion.

I don’t think its without cause… I think the cause is simply beyond human comprehension… meaning beyond any structured process of human thought; deduction, logic, etc.

check out this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_catalyzed_nuclear_pulse_propulsion

But wasn’t matter created in the Big Bang? Isn’t it destroyed when we detonate nuclear bombs?

I don’t think matter is being ‘destroyed’ during a nuclear detonation (atoms are being destroyed, but the matter that composes them is still there) …I think you could say the matter is being rapidly and violently rearranged.

Yeah… I agree… matter is a form of energy… and even the nuclear force released in an atomic bomb could be articulated as necessary for the structural integrity of the material and so matter itself.

I think it is conclusive that matter isn’t a constant in this reality… although that fact is negligible to the point of the causal chain I was making.

Matter, as far we know, is finite. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed…

I always like to add a ‘’…by MANKIND’’ to the end of that statement.

Jesus was born in Jeurleuseum. When he was in his 30’s, he went to Rome and taught people about god. he was then christified with the crown of thorns and no blood left in his body at all. he had to little blood that Jesus said he was really thirsty.

miscegenymiser, Your analogy of oranges is not really a valid one. It is… well, apples and oranges…

Purple oranges is something we can see, observe, inspect , and test. We can not do that with things outside of reality. At least not as far as we know today.

Matter, as far we know, is finite. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed, there must be a finite amount of matter. But the existence of matter may be infinite, or it may have emerged at the time when space and time emerged, if it actaully did. But I still see no paradox between the concept of an infinite space and time and physical causality as we undertand it in our universe.

As always, very interesting discussion.

Have a good weekend all…

“why couldn’t God create evolution?”

You are right, god could have created evolution. The easter bunny could have too. Or maybe the flying spaghetti monster. There is equal evidence for all these theories.

Well, it all started with the big bang, then some 30 year old virgin sat in the basement of his parents home, and thought, I think I should create christianity, like in the 1939, and uhh yeah, well that my version of how that started but, the rest, from nature babe,

Nice manmade theory you’ve made but God Himself in His Word already told us and revealed to us the birth of religion - I accept His version.

captainassassin:

If reality requires no explanation then we must assume it is the preternatural default in defiance of the laws in and of itself… a supernatural property of something we would only describe as the definition of natural. There is obviously still a problem.

If reality is without cause… why should we not assume anything of reality can exist without cause? Deductive logic would be baseless. No cause could necessarily be assigned to a given conclusion.

Through our Holy Prophets.

There is a problem with reality… it requires an explanation.

I don’t think it ‘requires’ an explanation, as much as people often simply ‘want’ an explanation.

…I think that we will have to venture into strange fields of subjective reality to do so…

…or maybe an intevention by an outside source…

Now I know you said not to answer it through God, but there really is no other answer. Personally I think that evolution supports the fact that God created everything that we can see, hear, or touch. Most people think that evolution is an atheistic point of view, but that is far from it so I am going to ask you a question, why couldn’t God create evolution?

“Nice manmade theory you’ve made but God Himself in His Word already told us and revealed to us the birth of religion - I accept His version.”

Amblessed, sometimes you really make my day. I had a real good gaffaw over this one. Manmade theory? But a book written by ancient uneducated superstitios men has all the real answers? Too bad there is actual evidence to support toadaly’s excellent analysis, and there is zero evidence that supports your fantasies.

how can it be hypothetical when it has been used to destroy matter in lab tests?

…heyyy… if you’re going to add the hypothetical ‘anti-matter’ into the equation, that changes things.

Totally Toadaly, very well explained :-)

Mishkadoosh, also bare in mind that ancient people already “knew” the gods were somewhere up there,(Toadaly’s explanation) which made it even more believable when Lightning struck, a hail storm or twisters struck them. To then believe it was a “sign” from their god! On the other hand, something like rain could then be seen as a blessing from their gods, Only because: This was the most “realistic” explanation they HAD in that time for this Natural occurrences. But they didn’t keep it at that, they took it a bit further by starting to apply the supernatural powers to their every day life’s, from the assumption: If such god is able to send us rain or punish us with hail, then surely he MUST be able to control our life’s! That is where we end up and got stuck!

People need explanations… people have imaginations…

Wherever you are housing your laws of reality… you’re making the ultimate codex exceptional to the laws of itself… without acknowledging the possibility of a bigger reality allowing for the exception… this means you are arguing that the catalyst that begins the causal chain needs no cause itself… without proof that this can happen in the only reality you acknowledge. What argument is this but special pleading?

If you do not take the law of cause and effect beyond the point where it makes perfect sense into the impossible… you are not likely to see the anomaly. I am arguing that anyone encapsulating the laws of reality into a self contained reality is ignoring this obvious problem. If you allow for a reality beyond our perceptions… it is hypocritical to demand empirical evidence. This is my argument. This is my original point intended here.

It is speculation… but theories suggest that gravity is the manipulation of the material of space by a mass. Space warps to accomodate for the mass and the greater the mass the greater the warp and the stronger the force of gravity. This is why I suggested your recurring singularity thesis included the fabric of space into the singularity… it is hard to explain a contraction when you consider that nothing else would impact the motion of the material of the original expansion to cause the collapse. Gravity is a relatively weak force. If gravity increases as the fabric of space warps to accomodate the mass… then an eventual collapse seems more likely.

“but I am of limited capacity for reason. “

I doubt this very much.

I think the catalyst for the singularity to begin expansion could simply be the consolidation of all matter into one single point till it reaches critical mass causing an enormous explosion much like a star when it goes supernova, only on a much much larger scale. It actually makes perfect sense to me. In fact if you look at what happens when a star goes supernova (at least what they theorize), the core will have a sudden gravitational collapse (due to various reason) causing an explosion that will heat and expel the out layers of the star. Maybe there is a singularity in the center of the universe that behaves in a similar way. It explodes, sends all this matter out, expanding in all directions, and then eventually gravitational forces stop the expansion and begin pulling matter back toward the center. It is just a hypothesis, but one that I think does not break the causal chain.

No, I am not saying the singularity encapsulates all reality (timespace), just all matter. Until it reaches a point of gravitational collapse that causes the explosion. Just like the supernova. I don’t see it being anomalous.

jimahl:

“My point is just that we cannot use the laws inside nature to define things that are clearly outside nature.”

This has been my point since the beginning. The only addition… and the crux of the problem.. is that the natural law of the causal chain when taken to its end is blatantly impossible… working within only the natural laws… ie not allowing for the crate of your above example.

“Nothing has ever been observed within S&T that breaks those physical laws. “

Then please describe the causal chain to me… I say that the belief that reality is without cause breaks the causal chain… we cannot name another effect of reality that is without cause.

To encapsulate reality and allow for special laws to be outside of reality… all the while denying any existence of a super-reality is a self-disputing argument.

Or do you agree with me and say that we can only explain the causal chain by acknowledging a super-reality beyond our observations?

Interstellar travel is not necessary to account for the immediacy of alien life when an infinity is allowed for a creeping advancement… and besides I imagine that given an infinite amount of time to perfect… wormhole travel would be up and running. I know this was an aside… but I felt it needed addressing.

You are not talking about an infinity of time for the creatures of this reality however… so my argument for an overpopulation of alien beasties is a non-point… I am learning as we go… I didn’t know this was your hypothesis.

You are saying that the singularity was just there… normally this thesis includes the matrix of space and I would assume that yours would too if a contraction is part of the equation. So everything is packaged into a singularity… infinitesimally small and hot and composed of energy and a catalyst acts upon this singularity… but the catalyst is not from some outside source… it is embedded within that singularity and from our perspective sets the expansion into motion at intervals either regularly or irregularly… at timespans that span at least the current age of this expansion.

All this still seems to be at odds with the causal chain. Every new expansion the causal chains begin again?… but without a catalyst… or is this all one giant reverberation… the expansion and contraction… but the reverberation has no cause.

It just seems like a lot of compromise to me. The cause is more obfuscated and ignored rather than unnecessary… Makes little sense to me… but I am of limited capacity for reason.

What more can I say?

All observable life has a causal chain… cause and effect are a fact of life for those of us in this reality.

Determinism… the atheists rival to free will is based on the causal chain.

Evolution is dependent upon the causal chain.

If the causal chain of life is infinitely long… then life itself is infinitely complicated… the confinements of this universe should be teeming with lifeforms infinitely old and technologically advanced. An infinite amount of time for life to have spread means we should be inundated with all manner of beings from the furthest reaches of the universe. How do we explain our late start… if life on this planet was seeded 4 billion years ago… this means it took life an infinity to reach this planet… impossible in my eyes… but with no catalyst… this must be the alternate explanation. If life elsewhere had an infinite head start… why were the first lifeforms on earth single celled beings one step removed from protein strands?

Or… we have a super-reality that is beyond our current senses of perception… that the causal chain leads us too… but confounds us as beings of this reality.

It would still be an anomaly in the causal chain because the singularity encapsulates all of reality… I am assuming you include the inherent laws of reality into this universal sphere… meaning the cause and effect order we observe is a part as well… but is outside of this law… acausal itself. If it is without a cause when the inherent observed laws inside mandate that nothing is acausal… then that makes it an anomaly to the totality of laws ascribed to reality… and to allow for this anomaly to exist unexplained is a case of special pleading.

Toadaly has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

However, I have a few ideas on how and why some other religions came into fruition and popularity:

~Religion acts as a mass governing system- if everyone in one religious group is cautious not to offend an almighty deity, they will follow whatever rules they think this deity would want them to live by. While a physical justice system may not catch them when they did wrong, a devine justice system which records every bad deed, promising retribution after death for them, would scare most people into living on the straight and narrow.

~Many people fear what happens to them after death. Religion tends to create this elaborate fairy-story answer where there are no answers. It give people a sense of ease to know they’ll be spending the rest of time in the clouds with angels, or hanging out with 72 virgins, etc. People tend to fear what they don’t know, and this little bed time story helps them to sleep easy.

~Religion was not always a choice. In fact, many people were converted by sword-point, a case of ‘believe or die’. So, if people were faced with certain death if they didn’t abide by a certain religion, you can rest assured, people converted on the spot.

~Religion can mean huge profits for certain people in the group- look at the church of scientology. L Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology/Dianetics) said it best when he was questioned about making money as a writer: ‘You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.’