My thoughts on life

Nils123

There may be a "God" but none of the current religions are right. There must be a higher power or something that we do not understand because there is no explanation how energy can come from "nothing." Unless you believe in the theory that "nothing" does not exist because there has always been something everywhere. If there is a higher power it is ridiculous that this higher power wants us to worship Him. I cannot think of a situation where an omniscient being will have an interest in a set of idiots bowing to its possible presence. "God" will never send a person with a good heart to a so-called Hell because he / she does not believe in him. The world is too complex to expect us to be sure of the presence of a "God." Anyway, a "Hell" is not likely, in my opinion, no one is born bad and your behavior is only influenced by your environment. If someone were born bad, it would be enormously crooked to torture a being forever who was created by"God" himself.

The presence of a higher power still does not explain how nothing became something. Maybe"God" too has to wonder where he actually came from and how it all started. Ultimately, a clear minded person can only draw a disappointing conclusion: We are not (yet) able to understand.
We must miss a certain connection, a certain sense, a certain insight. I wonder if there has ever been a living being in the universe that has ever understood the origin of life. But I am starting to develop a kind of distrust with my own limited brain, so I stop this pointless thinking now.

(Please argue against or with me to give me new insights)

DingoJones

There may be a "God" but none of the current religions are right. There must be a higher power or something that we do not understand because there is no explanation how energy can come from "nothing." — Nils123

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because we have no explanation doesnt mean you can just make one up, you have to actually explain why god is the best explanation.
Since the rest of what you say follows from the quoted statement, I think your argument fails.

Nils123

↪DingoJones

The quote says "There may be a god" and "There must be a higher power or something that we do not understand".

I am therefore not saying that god is the best explanation

ChatteringMonkey

There must be a higher power or something that we do not understand because there is no explanation how energy can come from "nothing." — Nils123

There are physical theories that try to explain this, it has something to do with quantum fluctuations and particles and anti-particles that cancel eachother out... but don't ask me for the details :-).

If there is a higher power it is ridiculous that this higher power wants us to worship Him. I cannot think of a situation where an omniscient being will have an interest in a set of idiots bowing to its possible presence. "God" will never send a person with a good heart to a so-called Hell because he / she does not believe in him. The world is too complex to expect us to be sure of the presence of a "God." Anyway, a "Hell" is not likely, in my opinion, no one is born bad and your behavior is only influenced by your environment. If someone were born bad, it would be enormously crooked to torture a being forever who was created by"God" himself. — Nils123

Yes, Gods of traditional religions don't make much sense. You accept it on faith or you don't.

The presence of a higher power still does not explain how nothing became something. Maybe"God" too has to wonder where he actually came from and how it all started. — Nils123

Yes God is not a good explanation because you only push the problem back one step.

Ultimately, a clear minded person can only draw a disappointing conclusion: We are not (yet) able to understand. — Nils123

I think this is a fine conclusion. But it needn't be that disappointing... you can also take the view that we have come a long way since we crawled out of the mud.

DingoJones

↪Nils123

Ok, fair enough, youre right you didnt say there must be a god.
However, referring to a higher power is the same fallacy...well ok, I guess it depends on what you mean by “higher power”. That usually implies a sentience or being, but what did you have in mind?

alcontali

The presence of a higher power still does not explain how nothing became something. — Nils123

0 = -1 + 1

Hence, nothing (= 0) can become something (= 1), along with something else (= -1) without violating any conservation laws. This phenomenon is actually well known and even quite well understood:

Virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and then mutually annihilate, or in some cases, the pair may be boosted apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become actual particles, as described below.

The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles. They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. — Wikipedia on virtual particles and pair production

Hawking used this principle to explain why a black hole that seemingly absorbs everything, including light and other radiation, still radiates away energy:

Pair production is invoked to predict the existence of hypothetical Hawking radiation. According to quantum mechanics, particle pairs are constantly appearing and disappearing as a quantum foam. In a region of strong gravitational tidal forces, the two particles in a pair may sometimes be wrenched apart before they have a chance to mutually annihilate. When this happens in the region around a black hole, one particle may escape while its antiparticle partner is captured by the black hole. — Wikipedia on Hawking radiation of black holes

In fact, black holes must radiate something away, because otherwise they would be able to evade the general principle of entropy, which they cannot. Hence, Hawking's famous hack.

Frank Apisa

Always a good idea to start at the beginning. You wrote:

There may be a "God" but none of the current religions are right. — Nils123

For sure...there MAY BE a "God." In fact, there MAY BE many "gods."

Which, of course, demands that there MAY BE no gods.

With that out of the way...

...on what do you base your assertion, "...but none of the current religions are right"...whatever that means?

Nils123

With that I mean that the chances are extremely slim for humans to coincidentally guess the truth about a possible presence of "God". Also I think that most current religions are obviously based on morals people had in the time the religions were created.

My thoughts on life

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions